If I hadn’t met my wife 30+ years ago, I can see how I might have become a sort of paleo-proto-incel…maybe just more of a bitter old maid of a man that no woman would want to be around. I do feel for the incels. They certainly aren’t happy. There’s something unhealthy about a society that produces so damn many of them.
Everyone close to me was this. We went outside though and weren’t bombarded by screens 24/7. Had space to think and learn and solve and grow. Instead of echo chambers of ppl comprised of the worst parts of ourselves.
Yeah, I don’t know. I feel much more sorry for the girls and women who get hit by that hatred. And they definitely do. Online and sometimes offline as well. I see it in school (in Germany) how some boys as young as 12 already bought into the incel narratives and treat the girls accordingly. This has to be stomped out.
I pity the girls who get treated horribly and I pity the incels who do it because they’re deeply unhappy people. My pity doesn’t justify what they do about their unhappiness, but it is a sad state of affairs all around.
That’s part of why they feel like they don’t belong and hate the world. No one is saying you should excuse their actions or that you should not prosecute them. I agree that this has to be stomped out, but treating symptoms instead of the causes only goes so far.
Makes sense yeah, it’s just that I see way more male incels online than femcells, I don’t really know all the ins and outs of Reddit despite having used it for five years lol, is it the twoX chromosome sub?
Funny thing is… there isn’t. Its easy for a woman to get laid if she chooses to. She can go on any dating app, like bunch of dudes and an average girl could easily have a different guy every night.
The single female population, albeit sizable too ofc, hasn’t had much of a change as a percentage over the years. Single male population is however skyrocketing.
Two thirds of male under 30 are single. But only one third of female under 30 are single over a past year of time. You could theorize women are simply dating older now, which may be true, but wouldn’t account for such drastic disparity. Also this gap exists in 30 to 40 bracket too, though much smaller.
Most simple answer is that they’re sharing men, whether they realize it or not.
We know from dating apps that vast majority of women only select on very few percent of men. So the most attractive men are essentially having multiple women at the same time or at round robin (it’s not cheating). Polygamy is pretty much coming back. In some other countries like china, polygamy has become an open secret for the rich.
Its easy for a woman to get laid if she chooses to. She can go on any dating app, like bunch of dudes and an average girl could easily have a different guy every night.
That’s ridiculous nonsense. It’s completely untrue. The face that you think any average woman can have sex with any man she meets every single night of the week just shows how shallow you think people really are. No, any average woman can have sex with any man she meets every single night of the week. This is just “women have it easy and have their pick of any man ever”.
But even if you ignore that, what guarantee do those women have of being safe? What’s their guarantee of not being choked their first time with someone new? That’s a real, common thing happening with people these days, all the way down to the teen years. My sister has had this happen to her multiple times and there are countless accounts online to the point there are articles and studies written about the subject. What’s their guarantee of even an orgasm (given the actual, proven orgasm gap) or even getting raped if they say no?
Sure, you could say any average woman could have sex. And she’d be risking her safety and potentially life for the high possibility of bad sex. But sure, go on about how easy it is for women to get laid.
I didn’t say any average woman can have sex with any man she meets. I said an average woman can have sex with a man every night. That’s extremely different. They can send a message to 100 different guys every day on dating app and straight up ask for sex. Guaranteed at least 1 guy will say yes. People have tested this. This is absolutely true.
There are real women who’s imo pretty below average looking do this on regular basis. With hundreds of past sex-partners.
But even if you ignore that, what guarantee do those women have of being safe?
There isn’t. That’s irrelevant though. What guarantee do I have that I would save a safe time getting anywhere by car? There isn’t. Why do you seek for a guarantee in anything anyway? That’s pointless and irrational. What guarantee does a guy have that when he meets up, there’s actually just bunch of muggers? There isn’t. That happens too btw.
You meet somewhere public & safe, take your time to vet, and then act on the perceived risk and reward. That’s how life works. There’s never a guarantee of anything in life.
But that’s still vastly easier than getting 0 matches and never having a chance to begin with. Fact is, women do match on dating apps, and they do go on dates, and they do have sex. Stats prove this. Men do not get anywhere near as much in any of the stats.
Make no mistake, I’m not saying people are having easy time getting genuine relationships. Dating apps ruin it for everyone. But if you don’t think women have it easier, you are completely ignorant to the stats that’s we’re seeing.
How in the world is safety irrelevant? Or are you just assuming that men will readily jump an average looking woman who wants sex because he’s just that shallow? It seems to me you’re speaking very poorly of men while trying to paint women as “having it easy”. Somehow, I don’t think sex that threatens my life is “easy” and I don’t think of that threat at irrelevant.
Is the goal to create places so inhospitable to open minds, that those who possess a shred of empathy flee, creating a conservative gravity well of votes? Is that even sustainable
I work at a high school (in a library, actually) in California, and we’ve had student walkouts for much less. Are the angry students doing any major protesting that you’ve seen? Or are the schools cracking down so hard already and they don’t want to risk it, or a high enough percentage of kids are assholes so they mock kids who care and it keeps those kids from protesting? I’m sure there’s a lot happening that we don’t hear about, so I’m curious what it’s like for Gen Z who overall doesn’t seem to stand for bigotry in general.
I don’t know whether to be appalled or hope that the gravity well becomes large enough it generates an event horizon that no stupidity could cross out of.
In order to use a defibrillator, you have to remove everything from a person’s chest. This includes the bra and to even shave chest hair to be able to apply the pads correctly.
I’ve always thought that it would be troublesome for a man to have to apply a defibrillator to a woman if someone assumes foul play because of their own issues.
Life over dignity in that situation, everyone else be damned.
While my cousin’s neighbor is fighting a law suit because, a woman (cousin’s neighbor) used defibrillator on another woman(when her heart stopped) , and other woman is now suing the neighbor for some minor marks from defibrillator. Mostly neighbor will win the case, but she has to appear in court now. Makes me feel so angry and i don’t even know the neighbor lady.
in these cases sometimes the insurance makes you sue even if you don’t want to because otherwise they won’t pay for any of the debt
My colleague has a situation where he’s being sued by his neighbor for minor burns after a firework accident a few years ago 4th of July. The neighbor doesn’t want to sue him but has no choice to get the medical services paid for.
I wonder if judges could be persuaded to levy punitive damages against the insurance company for this kind of thing. “Your honor, we’re only wasting your time with this because the insurance company is making us sue. Could you confiscate a few hundred million dollars from them for this worthless harassment?”
At least in America, all the judges are either in the pocket of the businesses or have their hands tied by laws passed by legislators who are in the pocket of businesses. Fuck them businesses.
The ultimate goal with insurance companies is to have you give them money and they never have to give you anything in return. If they can get you to sue the other person, the insurance company doesn’t have to pay. To them it’s a win-win.
And you have to remember that there’s a difference between what some random idiot on the street thinks and what someone can actually be prosecuted for.
There are, but remember that defenses come into play after being sued. So you can still go through the mental nightmare (because let’s be real, a rich person isn’t going to be doing CPR, and certainly isn’t going to care about being sued, so only your typical person who could lose everything in this scenario) of being a defendant in a lawsuit until the judge agrees to toss it or you go to court and are found not liable.
The public scrutiny and the mark on your record does not go away even if you’re found not liable. Once you are even accused of anything like this, it’s there forever. People will think you got off on a “technicality”.
If you’re a man facing this, your life is ruined. May as well move away and never come back.
The court of public opinion, and cancel culture, do not care about good Samaritan laws.
News that destroys reputations can spread faster and further than the truth. Most people still think the McDonalds coffee lady is a gold digger after 20 years of corrections.
Never said I wouldn’t do the CPR. Only pointing out that in an emergency situation that people are fucking stupid and that a random idiot could easily interfere violently with what they think might be sexual assault
I just did red cross CPR and AED training last week, and the materials said the clothes all need to come off (or pulled up or whatever - off the chest) but chest hair doesn’t need to be shaved. Presumably the instructions change periodically.
Its probably much better to have a shaved chest, but lets be realistic. In a situation where CPR and an AED are being used, 1. you probably arent going to have a razor handy 2. the sub-optimal contact with the skin is the least of you (or the patient’s) worries.
It’s only an issue on very hairy chests – i.e. full “bearskin rug” where you need to place the pads. There are patients that have so much hair the pads aren’t even touching skin.
In which case you absolutely need to remove the hair. A slightly delayed initial defibrillation is better than multiple ineffective ones. Most AED kits should have a spare set of pads (“wax the chest” with the first set) or a disposable razor.
You’re not going to take time to shave, every second counts. The solution is the extra adhesive pads most every AED has. You plant one of those on the the chest hair and rip, and you can get an effectively hairless spot for your lead.
The instructions say that chest hair comes off if the pad isn’t sticking effectively to the chest. That means shaving if you have a razor, or using the second adhesives (kid/adult sizes usually come in the same AED kit) as ad hoc waxing devices.
Imagine dying because some old puritan assholes decided at some point that female nips are inherently offensive but male nips are fine. Humanity can be so idiotic sometimes
Doubtful. I recognize the world is a shitty place so I had a surgery to prevent me from bringing more people into it.
To be clear, because somehow this was lost in translation, I wish it was as cut and dry as giving CPR to someone who needs it. But the world, again, is a shitty place.
It does not have to be life over dignity. There can be a middle ground they could at least provide a cover while doing their thing. I know a teen girl who changed school, did therapy and tried to sue because she once had a seizure and they stripped her naked in front everyone to save her. Her “friends” took video of her and spread it all over their school. As awful as it sounds I’m not making this up.
Why does almost no one clear the area in these posted experiences? That was covered in my (very) basic first aid training. It was emphasized, and it came with a heavy reminder that patient care should be a very high priority. I’m honestly just suprised to read all of these.
Y’all need better trainers and better Good Samaritan laws to protect you. What a world where someone just dies when they could have been saved by someone who was already nearby. Society sucks. Neither “angle” is great.
Yup, society sucks. It’s probably selfish of me, but I ain’t saving someone when it’s possible that I get accused of SA. It’s just not worth it. The hassle and the possiblilty of being labelled could affect my future and jobs.
You don’t have to, but some defibrillator kits include a razor, and when I took a CPR class, we were taught how to remove hair using either a razor or an extra set of defib pads.
They’re constantly updating best practices, the kits come with a little razor now. Though we got told to apply the pad on the hair and then pull it off, effectively waxing the area. It’s apparently to get better contact. Personally I think shaving would be more effective, suppose you do what you have to in the situation.
This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.
Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.
Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.
Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.
Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?
No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.
As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.
Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.
Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.
Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.
Interesting - I was not aware of that. I’ll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges’ opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.
Real child pornography should only be illegal because of the harms it represents. The text of the First Amendment would clearly protect victimless obscenity.
It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.
go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.
I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.
The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.
It’s the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be “well regulated.” A “well regulated” right shall not be “infringed” is undeniably different than “Congress shall make no law” which has no limitation to its attached right.
Well regulated militia…aka one of good working order. It is not in the same breath of the right of the people to bear arms…does it say the right of the militia or people?
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it doesn’t, it specifically delineates “the people” as those with the right to arms.
Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom’t have the right to bear arms.
Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] militia.” He argued that State governments “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms”, and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.[13][14]
Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
I agree, I prefer the argument that “everyone deserves the right to defend themselves so long as they haven’t proven they’re a danger to others, and presumption of innocence is how our court system works thankfully, so only those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership.” Problem is everyone likes to argue about the intent, which still seems not to be “let the army have guns.” I agree, we shouldn’t have a standing army.
Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.
No, the difference is who the aggressor is.
Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?
Fuck it, I’d rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.
Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs.
Sure
We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.
Which is why I think the “what the founding fathers intended” argument isn’t necessarily the best path.
It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life
Except it isn’t though. We already have a large amount of gun laws, and we don’t properly enforce those. We could start doing that, and paying attention to the root causes of the violence rather than one of many tools people use to do harm by focusing on either A) completely ineffective feel good laws that solve nothing or B) completely totalitarian laws that restrict our rights and generally disproportionately affect marginalized POC communities.
But no, gotta ban standard capacity magazines which are in 95% of people’s firearms and make them disadvantaged in a deadly force encounter in which they would need full capacity. Doesn’t matter that criminals could just buy a few regular followers or file the limiter down so they have full capacity but I can’t because I am not running away if I have to use it in defense, so I’ll get caught unlike them. Doesn’t matter that a mass shooter can just put in another mag and keep shooting since there isn’t anyone returning fire, so the law only affects people carrying for self defense since they are limited on how many mags they can carry unless they want to lug around a bookbag or a trenchcoat like the school shooters.
The law can just be a dumb law, it doesn’t mean I support school shootings or some such nonsense argument you’d use to discredit me, you just support bad laws because “guns bad” and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.
And how many of those firearms were provided by the ATF? What, two or three separate fucktons? I can’t remember. There was the first one, then fast and furious, then I think another.
It may “work” if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them, and the people who don’t want to relinquish those, but feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless.
Reasonable advocates for greater gun control aren’t looking for “totalitarian” control.
Not according to the legislation they’ve been attempting recently. It’s almost always something that is too far, or just a feature ban.
Accountability is the big one in my opinion. If you own a gun and keep it loaded and unsecured and it is stolen and used to harm or kill others you should bear responsibility, even if it was reported stolen
Define unsecured. This is too subjective, to some it means on your person or locked in a house, to some it means stored in a safe with the ammo in another safe (neither of which I’ll have time to open in a break in).
There is often such focus on individual freedom
Good.
individual responsibility falls by the wayside.
Individual responsibility would have the theif be responsible for the theft, not the victim for “being too easy to steal from.” You don’t actually want individual responsibility to take a front seat, you want to pawn it off on people you feel were culpable for being victimized.
Responsible, legal gun owners shouldn’t be impacted by greater accountability. They would be inconvenienced
You contradict yourself.
waiting periods and more thorough checks.
Waiting periods have shown to have a negligable effect on crime. It is specifically for “crimes of passion,” and “suicide prevention,” but typically those will be commited regardless with whatever is on hand or they’ll just wait the 10 days if they’re really intent on going through with it, and if they don’t this time they can pick it up and just have it for next time. Mass shootings fall outside the purview of waiting periods, those psychos plan their attacks for months.
“More thorough checks” is also subjective and often how we get into ableist conversations on how “the ‘mentally ill’ catagorically do not deserve rights.” I’m not typically for them. If we actually enforced the laws we already have too that’d be a good start but we can’t even do that.
mental evaluation and 1 year waiting period
Ah, yeah, that ableism. Not into it. Which mental illnesses should preclude one from their rights, pray tell? And a murderer one year a murderer the next, they’ll bide their time. In fact statistically the ATF says average “time to crime,” (that is, time from purchase at a store until it shows up at a crime scene) is *11 years."
And that still doesn’t address the 600,000,000+ guns and trillions of rounds already unregistered.
A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.
How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to “own.” It still isn’t dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.
That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?
Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we’re supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote historydespite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.
That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I’ve come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.
You can trust my assertions, yes. For one, I am telling the truth. And two, I have no reason to lie.
You’ll understand how I don’t give credence to the word of a rando who makes grand claims, bold - baseless, even - assertions, and demonstrates an utter lack of rationality.
In [Professor Eugene] Volokh’s argument [for a broad individual right], the operative right in the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the justification of the right is to provide for a militia, “being necessary to the security of a free state.” A facial construction of these clauses would be that a right should be no broader than its justification; thus, individuals have a right to bear arms only to the extent that it is related to a militia or defense of a state. Or, as Volokh sets forth the issue, “[s]ome argue that justification clause should be read as a condition on the operative clause: The right to keep and bear arms is protected only when it contributes to a well-regulated militia or only when the well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.” Volokh’s response to the question flows from his review of state constitutional provisions. Although rarely occurring in the federal Constitution, state constitutions often contain justification clauses. Volokh explains that there need be no exact fit between the right and the justification: “one should expect the possibility of a mismatch between justification clause and operative clauses: The means chosen to serve the end will often be somewhat broader or narrower than the end itself. But it’s the means that are being made into law.” In Volokh’s words, the justification clause does not “trump the meaning of the operative clause…” Thus, there may be no law to “deprive people the right to keep and bear arms, even if their keeping and bearing arms in a particular instanne doesn’t further the Amendment’s purposes.” Volokh has made a convincing case that the breadth of a right may exceed its justification. It is less convincing that this premise compels the conclusion he asserts. The questionable aspect of his analysis is the breakdown of the Amendment into operative and justification clauses. It is clear that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is justified by the need for “security of a free state”; but to which clause does the militia belong? Only if the militia belongs to the justification clause may the right of the people be broader than participation in a militia or acting for the preservation of a state. If the militia belongs to the operative clause, Volokh’s conclusion does not follow. Under this reading, the individual right to own guns would be constrained by participation in a militia because the limitation occurs in the operative clause. The broad rights advocates would then be reduced to arguing the logical absurdity that the individual right is broader than itself. Should the reference to the militia be construed as belonging to the justification or the operation of the Second Amendment? It is more likely that it belongs to the operative clause. The militia has no independent justification or reason to exist. Its function is strictly in subservience to larger ends; in this context, it exists to protect the security of the state. It fulfills this function by operating as the tool through which armed individuals come to the aid of the state. The operative right should thus be read as a conjunction of the right to bear clause and the militia clause: the right belongs to individuals in a militia. Under Volokh’s analysis, it is possible that individuals in a militia have rights broader than relate to the security of a state. It is not possible, however, that there is any constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms outside of a militia. To read the Amendment in this manner would require not that the right is broader than the justification but that the right is broader than itself. Thus, Volokh’s argument collapses for failure to identify the militia as belonging to the operative clause of the Amendment.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
…
It is also undisputed that the Bill of Rights created no new rights. That there was no right of individual possession of arms for private purposes before this document voids any pretension that such a right existed after the document. The Bill of Rights was meaningful because it guaranteed that Protestants would not be treated unequally compared to Catholics in terms of possession of arms. It also transferred control of weapons law to the Parliament so that the English militia would never again be the tool of royal machinations. But the document also codified the central features of possession of arms in the country: arms were primarily important as tools of collective safety, and they were within reach of the law to regulate. The subsequent history of England shows beyond peradventure that there was no private right to firearms. The American colonies put great emphasis on the militia. This was primarily a function of the strong historic aversion against standing armies. The aversion intensified during British occupation of the colonies. But in again the historical record is devoid of any suggestion of an individual right to bear arms outside a military function. This is shown in the original state constitutions, not one of which unambiguously recognizes such an individual right.
…
The last refuge of the gun proponent pertains to the issue of self-defense. This is certainly a major perceived reason for the private ownership of guns. In a 1979 survey, when asked why they possessed a gun, 20% of all gun owners and 40% of handgun owners cited self-defense as the reason. It is unfortunate that these people may be operating under a delusion, having subjected themselves and their families to great danger in the guise of self-protection. One study examined the number of times a gun is used in self-defense against the risk of having a gun in the home in King County, Washington. The risks measured by the authors were the cumulation of “death from unintentional gunshot wounds, homicide during domestic quarrels, and the ready availability of an immediate, highly lethal means of suicide.” The authors conclude that for every instance of a death resulting from defensive use of a gun, there were 43 gun deaths resulting from domestic fights, accidents, or suicides.
One researcher, commenting on the study, noted that "the justifiable use of firearms for self-protection is a rare occurrence and carries with it much greater associated risks of the death of someone other than the perpetrator. The same approximate result obtains on a nationwide scale. In 1992, there were 308 justifiable firearm homicides in self-defensive compared to 15,377 total firearm homicides. Surely, no public policy can be sustained when the negative consequences occur 50 times more often than the positive consequences.
…
There was never a single mention at the Constitutional convention about an individual right to bear arms.
during the ratification hearings on the Bill of Rights in Congress, a draft of the Second Amendment was originally introduced which set forth an individual right to bear arms (that is, which did not attach a qualifying militia clause to the clause setting forth the right to bear arms). However, this version, which would clearly have set forth an individual right to bear arms was soundly defeated, and anew version, written by Madison, and which qualified the right to bear arms to its use in the service of a militia, was subsequently adopted and incorporated in to the Bill of Rights.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
…
The U.S. Supreme Court in Miller stated that “The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” There are two possible interpretation of this language. The first is that the Second Amendment gives every citizen a right to possess a weapon which might conceivable be used for military purposes. The problem with this interpretation is twofold: first, it leads to the remarkable conclusion that citizens have a right to possess such military weapons as machine-guns; bazookas, and perhaps even suitcase-sized nuclear weapons, but no right to carry a weapon such as a Saturday night special, which no branch of the military has ever issued to its troops. (Even the gun lobby has never suggested that there is no right under the Second Amendment to carry small handguns such as Saturday night specials). The second problem with this interpretation is that every circuit court since Miller, without exception, has rejected this interpretation of Miler.
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
The comprehensive nature of [digital] archives can give scholars a high degree of certainty that keyword searches accurately reflect common usage since they contain most of the surviving printed material from the colonies and early Republic. The Early American Imprints series contains over 15,500 documents from 1763 to 1791 alone, 273 of which use the phrase “bear arms.”" If we discard the many reprints of the Bill of Rights, all quotations of the text of the Second Amendment in congressional debate, irrele- vant foreign news, reprints of the Declaration of Independence, and all repeated or similar articles, 111 hits remain, of which only two do not use the phrase to connote a military meaning.’ Using the same method of sorting results from the 132 papers published from 1763 to 1791, the Early American Newspapers database returns 115 relevant hits, with all but five using a military construction of “bear arms.” A search of the exact phrase “bear arms” in the Library of Congress da- tabase (which includes Letters of Delegates to Congress,Journals of the Continental Congress, Elliot’s Debates, and the House and Senate Journals of the First Congress) between 1775 and 1791 returns forty-one relevant hits, of which only four do not use the phrase “bear arms” in an ex-plicitly collective or military context. The sources prove that Americans consistently employed “bear arms” in a military sense, both in times of peace and in times of war, showing that the overwhelming use of “bear arms” had a military meaning. [W]hile not every sin- gle source uncovered from these digital archives uses “bear arms” in an explicitly military sense, the handful that do not are merely ambiguous; at most, they tend to show that “bear arms,” on rare occasion, was paired with additional language to mean, idiosyncratically, “carry guns.”
The historical record of usage clearly shows that, before 1791, “bear arms” was used in its idiomatic sense to denote military service and the like, and that usage to denote non-military conduct was rare and idiosyncratic.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.
Right - it has nothing to do with your having negligible awareness of the issue, getting caught blatantly shitposting, and scrambling to try and shore up your position with such scholarship as to apparently have not even read what you’ve posted.
Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.
Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.
For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.
You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.
As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.
To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.
But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.
Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.
I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.
Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.
Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.
You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?
Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”
Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.
My article contains undisputed facts.
Fact: there was no individual right before the bill of rights, in any state constitution, or in any system of English law, so how could there be one after the Bill of Rights?
Fact: for a few decades before the second amendment was written, there is no surviving text in which the usage of “bear arms” clearly refers to an individual right, and in 95% of the usage it refers expressly to the context of regimented military.
Fact: the self defense and home defense argument are utterly delusional in light of the actual statistics that offensive and suicide uses to defensive usage is 50 to 1.
Fact: the placement of the phrase “well regulated military” evidence a clear original intent for the second amendment to exist to serve the purpose of protecting state government, a purpose that does not suggest an individual right.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find me one instance of the phrase “bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
We’re still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don’t get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I’ve addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.
It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.
I see you haven’t bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.
My article contains undisputed facts.
See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.
Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant "well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
Then there is also the other issue that the other drafted forms of the amendment don’t even include that clause, indicating more clearly the main point, that they didn’t want the government to be able to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, after the episode they just had with the British government trying to limit arms to prevent an armed resistance in favor of colonial independence - said conflict having been kicked off specifically by an attempt to seize arms.
You can think one way or the other about how the state should treat guns, but people have this inclination to try to rewrite history about what it says and why. It’s pretty clear if you take the blinders off, regardless of what you think about the issue.
It’s ironic that your best argument is to suggest one read history - with mindless disparaging insult - in response to actual history and analysis, with citations.
As long as you are allowed to have a flintlock pistol, your constitution is not violated
‘As long as you have a quill and paper, your right to free speech is not violated’
Your argument is not how the Bill of Rights works. I for one am happy about that, I enjoy having free speech on the internet, and presumably you do too.
Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …
I wonder if people would have the same reaction if the person in question was a known Islamic Terrorist. If there were Facebook groups praising the legacy of Osama Bin Laden, would Meta be then justified to carry out similar censorship?
This guy isn’t a terrorist, or at least is not demonstrably so.
His only crime is wanting to create a place for Sikhs. Maybe he uses violence but I don’t see that in a Google search.
Besides which, if india had credible evidence he was a terrorist…. Chances are solid that he’d have been extradited long before now. It sounds like he wasn’t actually a citizen, but a refugee
This guy is a wanted terrorist in India. I agree he wanted a place for Sikhs but on what cost? He wanted to split the nation and it is unacceptable. He created so much violence inside the nation for that, many people were killed. It is like those proud boys want to split America and make Texas a country.
Why do cops have the power to just routinely turn off their body cams?
That should be limited to using the bathroom. If it gets turned off during regular duty, it should be presumed to mean something is being covered up because that is exactly what it means. There should be paperwork triggered every time it is turned off.
They shouldn’t be able to turn it off ever, for any reason. If there is a privacy issue it needs to be dealt with administratively, and not at the discretion of individual officers. If they can turn it off then it defeats the entire purpose of wearing them in the first place in my opinion.
I think it’s actually worse than just defeating the purpose. The good ones will leave their cams on all the time and be more likely to be pushed out by the bad ones over something petty, with evidence.
They didn’t, but with the amount of publicity it got they probably didn’t find it worth the investment since he likely wouldn’t be able to work anymore.
Scientologists poisoned the dog of one of the victims for speaking up. After that dog died the victim got a new dog which was then poisoned. They did what they could to shut her up.
It’s not that rich people are treated incorrectly, it’s that average people are treated too harshly. Rich people get what everyone should get: A way to defend themselves.
Nothing came out of the rammstein case. It was concluded that the statements given were false by the Berlin public prosecutors office.
To be fair, I think that is one of those cases where someone says something about something happening, and a whole bunch of people hop on a bandwagon saying the same thing to try and get something out of it. I mean some of the shit they were saying was straight up satirical, the “Suck Box”? Give me a break now.
Lynn even made it a point that Lindemann did not rape her, and then a bunch of women came out and said that he did but never testified against him in one of the safest countries on the planet to do so. The only thing I think is suspicious on rammsteins’ behalf is that they distanced themselves from Makeeva, but perhaps she was spreading rumors about her role with the band? Who knows.
Lol how do you out yourself as a misogynistic fuckface mansplaining shit they don’t actually understand without just saying it? Say this bullshit right here.
It’s pretty obvious who you were talking about buddy, don’t play stupid fucking games with me, we aren’t children.
And wow, you’re going to assume that I’m all of those things because I mentioned that Germany takes rape VERY seriously and if allegations are true (they have very invasive investigative procedures), then they should have persued it because justice will absolutely be served? You are an actual piece of shit.
I refuse to further this conversation. You should take time to think about what you said to another human being. You are so fucking rabid that you called me those things when I even presented potential evidence AGAINST them, just that the evidence for them heavily outweighs everything else. You have absolutely no idea what my views are and you automatically assumed I’m one of the worst kinds of people imagineable.
There’s definitely not another actual human being on the other side of that screen, other people definitely don’t matter and don’t have feelings just because you can’t see them.
It's a common English phrase that refers to dying. The use of "earth" uncapitalized refers to the ground or land, not the planet Earth. You might be more familiar with the variant "leave this earthly plane," which, by the way, has nothing to do with airplanes.
When people leave this earth they are welcomed onto the yearly space rocket that asends into the heavens. After seven days and seven nights of travel they land on Pluto, where the big farm in the sky is. That’s where your pets and grandparents are. Pluto is called Earth3 by the people on it.
Uh wtf? Why did she yell at a nearly 90 year old lady and cross the street to shove her to the ground? Unless I'm missing something, the girl in the photo just seems to be mentally unwell.
Well thanks for you high value opinion. If there was just a different way for you to voice your dissent with my way of expression. Like maybe a thumbs down or something like that.
But there's no such thing so I'm reliant on your written feedback mister comedy critic who goes online to argue about what is funny.
Holy shit you're fucking stupid. Do you honestly not expect me to just go look at the vote counts? Are you that convinced of your own superiority that you think other people are too lazy to scroll upwards in the same fucking thread?
Jesus Christ half of this site is completely insufferable.
Well it appears Flying Squid has his ass cheeks firmly wrapped around his own neck, so maybe Flying Squid should go fuck himself since he's already so far up Flying Squid's ass.
Hank’s first comment has 16 upvotes, your leading comment has 9 upvotes. Hank’s comment does have more downvotes, putting the total vote tally in the negative, but he technically has more upvotes.
Idk, the guy who mentioned it worded it similar to “he has more upvotes than any of your comments have”, which is technically true. You said it wasn’t true, suggesting he was looking at downvotes, but the fact is that BOTH his upvotes and downvotes are higher.
I really enjoy when people are ambivalent about what I come up with. That means people start thinking and I like that more than simple agreement. Thank you for telling me your honest opinion.
People shit on us all the time. We don't mind as we get along with most of the world when it comes down to business and we like to criticize ourselves actually more than most foreigners like to.
Tantrum because she was told she had to leave a park because it would be closing soon. I read a few articles and skimmed one more. Sounds like she was an entitled piece of shit.
How are landlords and home sellers making money if no one can afford anything?
I don’t understand it. Who are these people out there paying $2200 per month for a one bedroom, or half a mil for a 1500 sq ft house? How are there that many buyers of these services to where the prices aren’t dropping?
People need to live somewhere. Wtf is happening and what is going to happen?
Right now? roommates. I guess I’ll just be my dad and stepmother’s caretakers and move in with them in a few decades? I mean, I’d prefer a revolution or two, but I just feel there’s no way that’s happening.
Edit: id settle for some crazy ass innovation that rocks the globe, like a new power source or alien overlords or a combination of the two.
Those people you're referring to already have cash they're sitting on. Once you have enough in the bank that your interest is generating income, you're set for life and can continue amassing all the things at the expense of the poor. It's like a game of Monopoly towards the very end. It's the top few players who own everything, and they're bankrupting the unlucky thimbles who land on Boardwalk.
If you didn't get into the housing market already, I'm sorry but it's not looking good for you if you're not rich. Something drastic needs to happen to put an end to this corrupt system.
That’s the neat part, the conglomerates have done the math to figure out how much vacancy they can tolerate and still make money with shit ass prices. Then they set up some price collusion to make sure other property owners don’t fuck up the money train.
Who’s paying? The 25%+ wage earners. Everyone else it’s fucked and sharing bunk beds.
The only way this changes is a collapse or for law makers to regulate.
So, in essence, you are telling me that healthcare debt is one of the most solvent types of debt in America, and instead of passing real assets which follow a different set of rules, Boomers are cashing out real assets to pay off unsecured debts, which would have been absolved in the estate proceedings, leaving the real assets to be passed off to the children?
But Boomers are dumb and greedy, so they are not taking advantage of that just to make sure they can have their mojitos?
Supply and demand is never so cut-and-dry. People need places to live, even if they are too expensive to afford them. So people team up and live cooperatively. One of my friends went in on a mortgage with another person whom he was on good terms with. They’re not romantically involved or anything, but they live together as co-owners of a house that neither of them could hope to afford on their own in their wildest dreams.
That’s the lengths that people are getting pushed to these days, and it’s unsustainable, but the real estate conglomerations know exactly where the line is and they always make sure they are butting up against it, but never crossing it.
its an increasingly small market of buyers and sellers flipping among each other. when enough boomers realise they sold out and can’t buy back in cause they blew their profits on the usual boomer shit, maybe things will change then
My dad, a boomer, passed away a few weeks ago and I can understand why he got a reverse mortgage. He had cancer and knew he was going to die, and he did it to guarantee that my mom has a place to live for the rest of her life since she’ll be surviving on only social security and some pensions. But it sucks that that wealth will disappear at that point and us kids won’t inherit it. That’s ok, we don’t feel entitled to it, but that is definitely one way that houses are being snapped up by companies and not somehow transferring to individuals.
Your family does understand that medical debt, especially the medical debt of a deceased person, is an unsecured debt that cannot be effectively collected on. Right?
The hospital might call and say "you owe us", but the Estate Lawyer who cost 700 dollars earned his retainer by saying "Dont contact my client again" (a legally binding interaction) and then working out the logistics of putting the real assets in the heir's name while dispelling the rest of the unsecured debt (credit cards. bar tabs. whatever qualifies as unsecured debt)...
I'm sorry you lost your dad, but his last offering was what sounded like a logical solution but actually just screwed over his family and siphoned money to bad people...
Don't think so, not if the reverse mortgage is a done deal and the medical debt is paid.
In general, hospital collectors will come at you sounding all intimidating, but will usually just waive off the debt or settle for a ridiculously low figure. Even if that doesn't happen, mom could have filed for bankruptcy. If you already have the house, you dont need to worry about your credit for the next 7 years. right?
But once you sink all of your liquid and real assets into the unsecured debt, the liquid and real assets are gone.
I pay $1900 a month in rent. My budget is stretched thin, and Im never starving, but theres definitely weeks where I eat ramen instead of real food. The alternative is live in a really bad area, get a roommate to move in with my spouse and I, or be homeless. Sad that after being married for 8 years and doing everything “right” we are talking about getting a roommate. About 6 months ago I looked up the apartment I lived at in 2015 for giggles - in 2015 I was spending $850 a month for it and this past winter they wanted $1150. I really think that in a few years we are going to see a lot of homeless people, like a lot.
Um, no. My husband’s raise this year was a one time $25 gas gift card - for the whole fucking year. I’m currently not working because of school, but I was getting raises in the cents per hour every year, despite getting glowing annual reviews and the highest raise my boss could give me. Fuck companies and fuck this entire system of selling my soul and any semblance of joy just to survive. And I’m incredibly lucky because we don’t have kids and am (sort of) able to afford to live off of one income for now while I’m in school, but I’m grinding through trying to finish as fast as I can without tanking my grades
Until the government does something of the following nothing will change:
LVT
Buy large amounts of low density land and build high density with public transport. Even if the work is outsourced.
Build a new city.
Give first time buyers a one off monetary exchange to buy a house/ exceptionally low interest rate mortgages.
That’s only going to happen when people vote for it. Otherwise people and the economy will be caught up in non value adding wealth. I hate the Communists on this website so don’t get the wrong idea here, but the wealth held in land and housing is largely valueless as it adds nothing it’s just have value because of scarcity. That scarcity needs to be broken.
My personal view is to remove the bot. I don’t think we should be promoting one organisations particular views as an authority. My suggestion would be to replace it with a pinned post linking to useful resources for critical thinking and analysing news. Teaching to fish vs giving a fish kind of thing.
If we are determined to have a bot like this as a community then I would strongly suggest at the very least removing the bias rating. The factuality is based on an objective measure of failed fact checks which you can click through to see. Although this still has problems, sometimes corrections or retractions by the publisher are taken note of and sometimes not, leaving the reader with potentially a false impression of the reliability of the source.
For the bias rating, however, it is completely subjective and sometimes the claimed reasons for the rating actually contradict themselves or other 3rd party analysis. I made a thread on this in the support community but TLDR, see if you can tell the specific reason for the BBC’s bias rating of left-centre. I personally can’t. Is it because they posted a negative sounding headline about Trump once or is it biased story selection? What does biased story selection mean and how is it measured? This is troubling because in my view it casts doubt on the reliability of the whole system.
I can’t see how this can help advance the goal (and it is a good goal) of being aware of source bias when in effect, we are simply adding another bias to contend with. I suspect it’s actually an intractable problem which is why I suggest linking to educational resources instead. In my home country critical analysis of news is a required course but it’s probably not the case everywhere and honestly I could probably use a refresher myself if some good sources exist for that.
Thanks for those involved in the bot though for their work and for being open to feedback. I think the goal is a good one, I just don’t think this solution really helps but I’m sure others have different views.
The bot calls Al Jazeera "mixed" factually (which is normally reserved for explicit propaganda sources), and then if you look at the details, they don't even pretend it has anything to do with their factual record -- just, okay they're not lying but they're so against Israel that we have to say something bad about them.
One issue with poor media literacy is that I don’t think people are going to go out of their way to improve their literacy on their own just from a pinned post. We could include a link in the bot’s comment to a resource like that though.
Do you think that the bias rating would be improved by aggregating multiple factors checkers’ opinions into one score?
Yeah it’s definitely a good point, although I would argue people not interested in improving their media literacy should not be exposed to a questionable bias rating as they are the most likely to take it at face value and be misled.
The idea of multiple bias sources is an interesting one. It’s less about quantity than quality though I think. If there are two organisations that use thorough and consistent rating systems it could be useful to have both. I’m still not convinced that it’s even a solvable problem though but maybe I’m just being too pessimistic and someone out there has come up with a good solution.
Either way I appreciate that it’s a really tough job to come up with a solution here so best of luck to you and thanks for reading the feedback.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.