Are you being ironic? I actually can’t tell on Lemmy.

In the US when you kill random people it’s murder and when you take random people who aren’t breaking any laws and child them captive, then it’s kidnapping.

AMERICA BAD GUNS AND HEALTHCARE LMAO GOTTEM

Aldous Huxley described your vision of Utopia in brave new world. I think it’s ridiculous, unobtainable, and overall a terrible approach to society. Life is all about lasting and meaningful relationships, so any approach that views these as optional or outdated is broken before it even starts. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.

It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that’s what you want to do.

Because the solutions look different.

Yeah you might be right. Any government will inevitably grow corrupt and needs healthy fear of the people to keep them honest. Or as a wise man once put it: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

I identify as politically conservative, and if I’m not mistaken that’s nearly the same as fascist in your eyes, which you’ve just stated is deserving of violence. Would you feel justified using violence against me if you saw me at the polls and knew that I were planning to vote conservative? I can’t believe I’m asking this question, but I’m honestly not sure.

You legally and morally can’t resort to violence over politics, and if you think you can, then you shouldn’t be protected by the social contract regarding free speech. Basically, you are not compatible with modern society and should be locked up or banished. Also I’m not a liberal.

That’s crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.

The problem with your argument is that it’s giving carte blanche to political zealots to resort to shooting their opposition in the face because it’s “ok to shoot fascists”, and also apparently ok to label your opposition as fascist without having to define that label or justify your labeling. Why does nobody ever answer that question? Seems like every time I ask this question I get some variation of “found the fascist”, or deflecting like you’ve done. Why don’t you just admit that you don’t have a practical definition of what it means, and that you use the term to justify violence done by your team?

How exactly do you define fascism though? Seems like that term gets used quite a bit.

Too many people in the world crave an identity that is original enough to be interesting, but not so original that it can’t be quantified or defined by accepted or understood identity templates. They need to be able to put a name to their identity so they can talk about it.

With so much going on in the world beyond our control and maybe more importantly our increased access to news about those events, we need a way to process things that we can’t influence, but that may impact us anyway. Stoicism can provide that in an increasingly secular society, where it used to be religion.

Maybe, but the only reason this is notable is because of an uptick that is from the literal opposite of Christian right wing.

Mass shootings weren’t even defined before. We didn’t talk about them because they weren’t tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn’t settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.

After reading your comment I had to fight an almost overwhelming urge to buy a Nazi flag and rent out my house for the simple pleasure of screwing over renters. That’s how fast it happens.

Glad we can finally get back to hating big pharma. They are a bunch of greedy opportunists, and always were.

I guess maybe we are using the terms differently.

I’m not the guy who tried to claim an insane murderer is somehow representative of an entire political party.