#libertarian nonsense | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wanderingtycho · 1 year

Text

By far one of my favorite things about the way Disco Elysium handles politics is that Libertarianism is treated as an absolute joke. Like the game is obviously sympathetic towards communists, but there are elements of sympathy towards the moralists and fascists as well. Not sympathy in the sense of “oh can’t we all just get along, we’re all human” BS, but sympathy in the sense that you are able to understand a persons thought process that would lead them to embrace moralism or fascism. Even if that thought process is deeply flawed, and leads to horribly off kilter conclusions, going through the centrist and fash quests gives you meaningful insight into the appeal of those ideologies.

But Ultraliberalism? The game just laughs at you, repeatedly and mercilessly. As it should, you’re a cop so poor a guy you’ve known for one day has to pawn some fancy hubcaps so you can afford rent, yet all you talk about is your grindset. Your hustle, how you’re gonna disrupt the market and groove your way into the lap of luxury. It’s delusion, utter stark raving madness, and characters treat you as such.

Kim is at a loss for words whenever you crank on your libertarian spiel, Evrart calls you a retard, you have to *trick* the mega-rich light bending guy into giving you mercury mining stocks because he’s simply too perplexed by you. Joyce, last of the self identified Ultras, doesn’t take you seriously. Sileng just goes along with it the same way he goes along with any of the other nonsense you can spout, because he’s on his own hustle, and there is no loyalty among charlatans. The only character who is wholeheartedly onboard with the money engineering and the visionary wave making lifestyle is literally named IDIOT DOOM SPIRAL.

But you see, all these things are just incidental, where the game makes it most potent jab at libertarians is when the vision quest stops. Notice I said *stop* not *end*. The communist quest line ends with a Rhetoric check in order to ask The Most Important Question about Communism. The fascist quest has you look yourself in the eye with an Endurance check to see if you can stomach the truth about yourself and your Vöws. The moralist quest ends with a heart wrenching Empathy check as you beg the iron grey and soulless enforcers of the status quo to please god help this district before war breaks out in the streets. There’s real personal stakes for Harry in all these disparate paths he can walk, what does Ultraliberalism get?

You and Kim look at a statue covered in tinsel and disco balls, Kim asks you why you went through with all this, and no matter what response you pick he’s like “Right, yeah, okay. Anyway, let’s finish the case.”

That’s it, no grand moment of pathos, no red Savoir Faire skill check to see if you really are the baddest hustler in the neoliberal hood after all. It’s completely limp, flaccid, lackluster. The game treats all the effort you put into this as exactly what it is: sad, cringe fantasies of a poor old man who’s huffing copium over the embarrassed millionaire mythos.

Disco Elysium doesn’t give libertarianism a poignant, profound conclusion because it’s an ideology undeserving of such treatment. It’s a hyper-capitalist cult mentality of toxic positivity and confirmation bias, a way for desperate people to trick themselves and other chumps into thinking they can bootstrap their way into wealth and prestige. It goes past wishful thinking into pure delirium, the game doesn’t engage with it seriously because it doesn’t have to, the only people who sincerely believe any of its tenants are morons and the clowns who sucker them.

#disco elysium #politics #this one is a tad more mean spirited than the last #I just really hate libertarians they’re so nauseatingly obnoxious #it’s a shame disco came out before NFTs were the latest trend those mooks glommed onto #imagine the kind of jokes we could’ve gotten out of Harry trying to send monkey jpegs over the radiocomputer

2K notes · View notes

ectoplasmfear · 4 days

Text

Honestly, the way that the cast and the fandom remembers Kalvaxus is really funny to me because... he was not that guy. Kalvaxus was strict but never quite mean. He had a very no nonsense approach to his job, but had to do a lot of the more stable parts of administration considering the other person involved with the day to day running of the school was Arthur Aguefort, a deeply unpredictable hubristic cokehead with all the power in the world.

The Bad Kids - more specifically Adaine - said that she really liked the school and thought he was a really good vice principal - the episode where it was revealed he was evil. When he saw Fabian randomly hit Gorgug, he told Gorgug that he shouldn't apologize for being randomly assaulted. When he handed a ticket to Adaine, he hesitated because Adaine was clearly on the verge of a panic attack. He gave Jawbone a job. He was genuinely trying to help the Bad Kids after Aguefort did some typical Aguefort shit and killed himself in front of them. He absolutely presented himself as a very helpful adult authority figure who maybe wasn't nice but he came off as trustworthy and largely fair.

Is any of that his true "deep down" personality? Obviously not. He's a banker, a libertarian, and an imperialist conqueror. He'll allow a few select students to be influenced onto this path. He can't say he approves of the Harvestmen being at his school but they're a good expendable workforce that he can discard afterwards to prove that despite being fiscally conservative, he is an ally and he is trans inclusive. He takes his little pleasures. Murdering Riz's father. Poisoning Aguefort, making him too stupid to see what his right hand is doing. Conspiring with his horrible capitalist bank that doesn't give out pens or lollipops. Investing in stocks, consorting with gangs of creepy tieflings. And when the mask is off he lets forth a storm of viciousness, hate, malice, verbal cruelty. Which is pretty par for the course for being stuck with teenagers for five hundred years, tbh.

But again, he has been doing this song and dance for five hundred-ish years, playing the role of the helpful authority figure. Dragons - particularly chromatic dragons like Kalvaxus - are infected with an absolutely massive ego, a destructive sense of pride that compels them to dominate, collect, amass, always amass wealth. It's baked into their immortal souls. They go to places, they commit violence on things there, and then they collect their rewards. It's a vicious cycle, and not dissimilar to the violent destructive cycle that adventuring tends to follow.

So when you take his ability to ever conquer, destroy, rule, devour, amass wealth.

Being good. At this stupid fucking JOB. That he HATES. Teaching teenagers. That he HATES. At a school. That he HATES. With only one man who knew what he was really like, the real him, only one man he didn't have to deceive, and it's the INSANE COKE SNORTING MOTHERFUCKER KEEPING HIM HERE.

#kalvaxus #d20 #dimension 20 #fantasy high #arthur aguefort #goldenhoard #i have a more serious meta about how penelope kipperlily porter and kalvaxus all act under arthur's principles surrounding #adventuring #it's just like. what if the people acting under that principle weren't great people.#but i also think kalvaxus is infinitely funnier if you remember how much he tried to do his job he was cursed to do forever even in the fac #of problems that he caused

83 notes · View notes

txttletale · 1 year

Note

You are quite clearly an anarchist or "left libertarian" who realized she can look more legitimate by peppering in anti-imperialism alongside Redditor "anti-censorship" nonsense.

its really funny when people accuse me of being a marxist-leninist for clout like buddy what fucking clout

#ask

251 notes · View notes

odinsblog · 18 days

Text

For clarity: Giving Ukrainians the ability to defend themselves against a hostile foreign invasion is not what is killing Ukrainians. IT’S THE RUSSIAN MILITARY AND THEIR INVASION OF UKRAINE THAT IS KILLING UKRAINIANS.

Sorry, but you can’t just delete the agency of the country that instigated war by committing an illegal invasion, and magically shift blame away from Russia.

And what happens to Ukrainians is very well documented—you need look no farther than Bucha and Mariupol to see what the Russian army does to Ukrainian civilians once they have seized their land.

This is a nonsensical Russian propaganda talking point, and unsurprisingly, Republicans + Libertarians + ignorant ass tankies who think they’re somehow defending “communist Russia” have been regurgitating the same idiotic rhetoric ever since Russia invaded Ukraine.

Hopefully hearing Marjorie Taylor Greene speak the rhetoric exposes just how incredibly stupid it sounds. Because it IS stupid.

Until Trump, there was was no other time in modern American history that Republicans would have argued against defending a country from a Russian invasion. Russia is the aggressor here, and as Marjorie Traitor Greene admitted herself, Ukraine is not in NATO, and Ukraine was not even seeking NATO membership when Russia invaded their sovereign state.

“… if you can take the mere existence of NATO as something so intolerable that Russia simply had no choice but to invade a country that wasn't in NATO then I guess you can believe anything.”

Russia could end the war instantly, just by turning its army around and going back home to Russia.

SN: To be sure, the United States has done and is still doing A LOT wrong; the U.S. has committed its own share of war crimes and has supported war criminals in other countries in exchange for oil and other natural resources—so yes, we can and we should be doing everything in our power to demand that America does everything it can possibly do to prevent Israel from committing any further war crimes and illegal land grabs in Palestine, but this one specific issue is about Ukraine, not Palestine.

Borrowing from another post, but it’s very apropos here:

“Tankies are not leftists. They think they are, which is both funny and sad. If they were, they wouldn't support Vladimir Putin, a far-right leader engaged in ethno-nationalist imperialism. It's your ideas and values that make you a leftist, not how much you hate the US.”

We can agree with one thing without having to agree with everything that America does.

Every enemy of America isn’t “good” just because they oppose America; and Russia has a very long history of its own war crimes and extensive human rights abuses.

#politics #republicans #marjorie taylor greene #ukraine #russia #tankies #mtg #russian invasion of ukraine #russian fascism ☭#🇺🇦#russian colonialism #russian imperialism #russia is a terrorist state #bucha #mariupol #war crimes #russian propaganda #putin apologists

32 notes · View notes

yuri-for-businesswomen · 8 months

Text

tumblr post simulator

random woman: i love lesbians

jakeysgirl: so you hate heterosexual women? why do you want us to literally die

flowers-and-shenanigans: i love lesbians too youre not special and i dont believe you

frogcreature69: this sounds kind of terfy and is possibly a fascist dogwhistle

ace-of-based: wow. classic tumblr aphobia

catgirldogdick: does this include lesbians with dicks uwu

american-libertarian-proud-dad: hell yeah lesbian is my favorite porn category

destieltruther83: Listen up fucker, this is appropriation of queer culture and sapphic love. I am a professional dog walker and happen to be an expert on the topic. [10 paragraphs of nonsense]

#shit post

115 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 10 days

Text

A.2.15 What about “human nature”?

Anarchists, far from ignoring “human nature,” have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, “human nature” is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant “what humans do,” it is obvious that human nature is contradictory — love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of “human nature.” Of course, what is considered “human nature” can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of “human nature” and “normal” for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of “human nature” once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

“Individuals are certainly capable of evil … But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they’d be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. “If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we’re going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you’ll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves.” [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what “human nature” is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a “human nature” radically different from a libertarian one. So “when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of “human nature” as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. “Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?” Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by “society” (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, “I don’t think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature.” [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not “innate.” All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn — that much is obvious, we feel — and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered ”the power to think and the desire to rebel” as “precious faculties.” [God and the State, p. 9]).

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people “savages” or “primitive” is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against “human nature”? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of “human nature,” it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For “while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth — the rulers, the employers, the leaders — who, happily enough, prevent those bad men — the ruled, the exploited, the led — from becoming still worse than they are” we anarchists “maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority” and ”both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.” So “there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers.” [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. “It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege,” argued Bakunin, “to kill the mind and heart of man … That is a social law which admits no exceptions … It is the law of equality and humanity.” [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) “human nature” it produces.

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of “sociobiology,” some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our “nature,” which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the “human nature” argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this “new” doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power — i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an “objective” and “scientific” basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, “the range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biology” and if this is what sociobiology means “by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree.” However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of “biological determinism” that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while ”[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviours” so are “peacefulness, equality, and kindness.” And so “we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish.” That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who “acknowledge diversity” in human cultures while “often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable ‘exceptions’ as temporary and unimportant aberrations.” This is surprising, for if you believe that “repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing.” [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both “normal” and “natural”). Bookchin refers to this as “the subtle projection of historically conditioned human values” onto nature rather than “scientific objectivity.” Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to “prove” that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! “What this procedure does accomplish,” notes Bookchin, “is reinforce human social hierarchies by justifying the command of men and women as innate features of the ‘natural order.’ Human domination is thereby transcribed into the genetic code as biologically immutable.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 95 and p. 92] Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

This can be seen when “hierarchies” in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a “weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an ‘alpha’ male, much less retain this highly ephemeral ‘status.’ By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history.” This “expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called ‘animal hierarchies’ where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about ‘alpha males’ or ‘queen bees.’” [“Sociobiology or Social Ecology”, Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.

The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to “human nature” (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power — be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong … until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to “human nature” and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn’t stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the “One True System” that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts — conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the “objective” scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin’s classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that “mutual aid” within a group or species played as important a role as “mutual struggle” between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gould’s essay “Kropotkin was no Crackpot” in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a “factor” in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as “natural” as competition so proving that “human nature” was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against “human nature” for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being “human nature” is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists “do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.” Secondly, change “seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence” so “who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities.” [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360–1 and p. 360]

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshall’s “Human nature and anarchism” [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127–149] and David Hartley’s “Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature”. [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145–164]

26 notes · View notes

leviathan-supersystem · 13 days

Text

it's always funny when right-libertarian types will talk about the state and property as if they're entirely separate or even (lmao) opposed social phenomenon. like on a surface level it's obviously nonsense since private property in the present day is still enforced by the state, but looking at the history of the state and property the notion that they're wholly separate is even more absurd. under feudalism the entire kingdom was the property of the king! (with lease-like social arrangements to lords, dukes, etc. in return for loyalty) under feudalism the functioning of the state and the property owner exerting control over their property were Literally The Same Thing. and while we don't live under feudalism anymore of course, property and the state remain inextricably interwoven.

24 notes · View notes

theconstitutionisgayculture · 10 months

Note

I'm a bi woman who works with FOUR crotchety, old Boomers. They're religious and they're Trumpers. I mind my own business and don't take my personal life to work, but these are the last people on Earth who'd kill me for being queer (ik you don't care for that word, so I apologize). Like, I just know I could walk into work tomorrow and be like, yeah, I'm totally gay, and they'd be like, doesn't matter, Kid, just do your work.

My family is pretty anti gay, and I don't think they'd accept me, so I stay in the closet, but there is 100% no way they'd disown me, let alone want me dead.

Conservative friends just love me like normal, and it's not even a question in my mind if they care about my sexual preferences.

I'm sorry for every LGB+ person who's been abused. I know they're out there, I've been friends with some of them. I even know a guy whose parents sent him to conversion therapy in high school. It's terrible to know some people hate us.

But this across the board, black and white, right wingers want you dead mentality is nonsense. It's ignorant fear mongering. Spiteful.

Worst I've seen the conservatives do is threaten to pray for me. 😂

Of course, I don't have much of a victim card to show for. There have been times I was harassed or snubbed for my sexuality, almost always by other gay women. Liberals, at that. For the most part, though, people have left me alone, and you know what? It doesn't matter. I see the way you and others get treated right here on Tumblr, and I'm appalled.

My conservative friends, family, and coworkers would never talk to me the way these cowardly Zoomer brats talk to you.

And let's just say, I'm not remaining anonymous because I'm afraid of my conservative family and friends; as a matter of fact, there are libs (some I consider friends!) following me, and I don't need the aggravation of their whole, how dare you talk to that transphobic traitor schtick.

I don't think this is even the 20th ask I've gotten from someone in the original LGBT alphabet soup saying almost these exact same things. It's so weird how Republicans and libertarians hate us and want us dead, but instead of ever trying to harm us or attack us, they just...act like normal people as long as we do the same. It's almost like maybe a lot of bad interactions between gays and the right aren't because the right can't stop from hating us, but because so many gays these days are absolutely insufferable.

You're absolutely right and you should say it.

77 notes · View notes

ritchiepage2001newaccount · 6 months

Text

WHY UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE JUST AS UNLIKELY AS EVER, UNFORTUNATELY

I'm a leftist (Libertarian-Socialist), who votes progressive, because I live under an "elected" government, and I had thought I had purged the MSNBC/CNN Nation from my friends list, but apparently not, as my timeline is just chock-full of media-driven hysteria over current events, so here's a primer:

"Liberals" who think their arguments are clever or relevant to the Second Amendment are exhausting.

They are not the left; they are just one half of the good cop/bad cop act of the corporate owned fire-hose of bullshit that is the corporate media, and corporate America's governing criminal cartel/duopoly.

Both cults "I like simple and ineffectual 'solutions', because they make me feel like I'm doing something, and I'm just stinky with fear."

There are over a hundred million legal gun owners, who some want to punish for somebody else's crime.

Well, there are some things to consider.

We've been a heavily armed country since 1621, and yet the epidemic of daily mass-shootings didn't begin until 20 April 1999 (Columbine), at a time when gun ownership was at an all-time low, and five years after Clinton's assault-weapons ban, so maybe guns aren't the variable.

Worth noting: One of the first things the "Pilgrims" did when they betrayed the Native Americans, was disarm "King Phillip" and his men.

Maybe, just maybe, dead school-children are the price of the neoliberalism practiced under the "Washington Consensus" of BOTH right-wing authoritarian parties since the 1980's? When your country offers you no prospects, and you become terrified of the future, what then? Fear can make unstable people do desperate things. Add to that a culture of celebrity, and what could possibly go wrong?

Another factor that goes completely unexamined, is the way Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill emptied our state hospitals onto our streets, and onto families ill-equipped to deal with the sometimes violent mentally ill.

Thank God, the "solution" is so simple…

Also, 84% of NRA members support universal background checks. The problem is, every time a bill comes up for a vote, Democrats add poison pill amendments guaranteeing defeat in the legislature (and the courts), and then they proceed to tell the TV cameras that "once again the GOP and the gun lobby have voted down background checks and defied the will of the people", or some such nonsense.

If you want to watch Dems sabotage universal background checks (while Republicans roll their eyes and face-palm) in real time, go here:

P.S. You can probably guess which one of these three groups I belong to (Hint: It's the one that's growing and actually decides elections):

LaborPartyNow!!!

P S The line, "You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer!" is not clever.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting tools, toys for hobbyists (target shooting), or even weapons for self-defense.

It's about ARMS!!!

It's about the individual citizen's right to arms, so they'll be prepared to join a militia, not the other way around. ‘Well regulated’ at that time, simply meant, ‘efficient.’ In other words, in order for a muster to be efficient, civilians needed to be already armed.

So the "collective rights" argument has a couple of problems that make it quite unhinged from history and reality.

1) As I've mentioned above, Americans have always been relatively heavily armed. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

2) Contrary to what you were probably taught in school, by the time of the Confederate artillery barrage on Fort Sumter, the war over slavery had already been going on for over six years, and was fought entirely by independent volunteer militia's. Fort Sumter was just the beginning of official involvement by government troops. How did that happen in a collective rights paradigm?

3) In what universe do government forces need to have their right to arms protected?

4) Since when do National Guard members keep National Guard arms (Hint: they're kept at the armory, and have been since colonial times)?

5) Obviously, "Liberals" are stupid.

Again: #LaborPartyNow!!!

P P S That was ENTIRELY the point of the first fruits of dissent, the 10 Amendments we've come to call the BILL OF RIGHTS (which have become a beacon to aspiring democrats all over the world), to protect INDIVIDUALS from the government they had just created. #TrueStory

35 notes · View notes