• Sheriffs are forming "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" refusing to enforce gun control
    285 replies, posted
maybe threads get like this because unreasonable and incendiary positions merit a response far more often than nuanced ones, creating an environment where genuine discourse is buried under bad faith arguments, mutual condescension, and the pursuit of largely contextless and heavily polarized debate in itself rather than the ideas put forward and how they apply in real life. perhaps this is why only this same stable of emotionally and mentally drained sadomasochists seem to take any interest in these threads past page 362?
By the way, I argued with proboardslol and Coyote because they're both parroting common myths that need to be dispelled thoroughly.
You're moving the goalposts, you said: You didn't say that you, personally, cut every loose end of yours in the gun debates you had. You said every gun debate you've participated in ended with an unanswered question from you, catbarf or Zombinie. That's evidently not the case, 3 very recent examples disprove it. You've made a brash statement that's been disproven. What's wrong with owning up to it? Seriously, what's wrong with admitting mistakes? Is the only thing you're going to take away from my post really some semantic dispute over that single statement, or are you going to genuinely consider the broader concerns I've expressed in my post and perhaps adapt your behaviour as a result?
No he didn't.
Your recent examples don't even qualify as having been engaged in debate, you're reaching hard for this, and I'm the one hung up on semantics? You still haven't justified this hypocrisy: Or admitted your error on these disproven claims: So holding me over the fire for contradicting your claim that gun threads end when pro gun posters bail on them seems a little, idk, asinine? Speaking of which- Why won't you engage me on any of the actual relevant data that's been brought up in this thread? You are preferring instead to focus on semantics.
STRIKE ONE. Grenadiac, Zombinie, and possibly a few others I’m forgetting have repeatedly cited their sources in multiple threads explaining as to why “BAN GUN” is not a valid solution. Catbarf posted alternative actions which would be effective against gun crime by identifying the most common ways which weapons end up in the wrong hands: Allocate the DoJ funds specifically for prosecution of straw purchase, the #1 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. Allocate the ATF funds specifically for prosecution of unscrupulous FFL holders, the #2 source of illegal firearms, but which they currently lack the resources to pursue. Raise liability on stolen firearms, or introduce safe storage laws. Further restrict handguns, the overwhelmingly most common weapons used in crime. Open the NICS to non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. Fix the broken interaction between state and federal databases (due to HIPAA) which often causes mental issues to not be reported to the federal background check system. Address suicide in some meaningful capacity. Address gang violence in some meaningful capacity. These are the social issues that are the most common root causes of gun violence. Make law enforcement do its damn job and update NICS so wife beaters don’t pass the background check and go on to commit mass shootings like the last 3 times. Note: I took some artistic liberties with that last point. STRIKE TWO. Way to dodge the question there. I was asking you to provide some examples of any points raised by people on your side which don’t rely entirely upon “ban this” or emotional appeals, because it was you who made the claim that “pro gun people aren’t the only ones to provide proper statistics and facts”. Yet instead of backing up that claim with even one example, your response is telling me to conduct an entire study on the shitposting habits of facepunch users on the topic of gun control. You’re doing exactly what you were accusing everyone else of earlier, but I’m going to give you one more chance to back up your previous statement. Maybe I’m wrong and there were people who suggested different things based on the many factors which lead to gun violence, but honestly it’s quite hard to find while constantly being drowned out in the sea of piss that is “no one should be allowed to have murder toys” and always being blamed for dead children. I’m sorry but I do not have the time, resources, or effort to make a statistical compilation of every gun related shitpost on facepunch (and I highly doubt anyone else will either), but if you don’t have any examples on hand then just say so instead of acting like a pseudointellectual YouTuber skeptic and doing this whole song and dance to avoid answering the original question. Also if you think trying to imitate people’s posts with a condescending tone makes you look clever, it doesn’t. As for whether or not the conclusion would matter to me, I would REALLY like to see something different right about now. At this point, hearing the same dumb measures being suggested out of ignorance of the underlying problems has me so apathetic that I lose a bit more hope in humanity I didn’t even know I had left whenever it gets brought up. At least one example I can think of was DantheMan looking at what some of us presented and having the decency to adjust his view on the subject and openly discussing alternative solutions which were far less drastic than what others were previously suggesting.
I literally transcribed what he said. You brought this up to respond to my point that some pro-gun posters left threads without addressing arguments made by anti-gun posters, something which is in stark contrast with Geel's depiction of events. Whether you personally took part in said debate is irrelevant, so you trying to avoid something as innocent as admitting a simple mistake by saying I didn't disprove exactly what you were saying is arguing semantics. I'm not interested in that. Why should I bother responding to anything you take issue with when you can't do it for points that I've been making since the beginning of the thread? You didn't address Geel's post being a gross misrepresentation of the anti-gun side of those debates. Instead, you pointed to a couple of examples of bad anti-gun posters as evidence that anti-gun posters never made compelling arguments. Nothing more on that front since I called it out. You didn't back down on your claim that my points are "devoid of meat", "platitudes" and "misrepresented statistics" despite my pointing out pro-gun posters that evidently disagree. I see no reason to give a shit about responding to every single issue you have with my posts when you have failed to do so yourself so far. You keep claiming that you want to "reach across" and make people understand what it means to have your point of view. You're doing a terrible job at it with me so far, starting with lacking the most basic of respect towards the efforts I make in providing constructive points rather than the low-effort ones you so decry. It's not even the first time this happens. Debates I had with you have devolved into that kind of nonsense in the past. Yet it's not like I'm incapable of having a reasoned debate with a gun rights advocate, as people like catbarf can attest to. You should probably take inspiration from him if you actually want to be constructive.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to get bent about people eventually ceasing to post in week or more old threads. That's not something just pro-gun posters do. You have yet to make any actual points that I've seen - you're throwing out complaints about the supposed habits of pro-gun posters, but your posts are buried among gems like: and while there are some pro gun posters being pretty aggressive nobody on "our side" is acting anything like this. This isn't evidence that pro-control posters have never made compelling arguments nor did I ever represent it that way. Obviously if I thought that was the case I wouldn't be here. I didn't address Geel directly in the thread (but I did address awcmon and someone else). What you don't see is me riding these guys' asses in the Discord every time they act like jackasses. Geel is kind of a lost cause so I don't really bother trying to reel him in. I'm not going to back down on that either. You are capable of making good posts, but you usually choose not to. I've had good discussions with you in the past and I've had bad ones. This is one's a real stinker. Most of the issues you bring up are the same issue rephrased. I don't see the point in repeating myself over and over. My attitude toward you is entirely because of your approach in this thread - the faux neutrality I mentioned before. It's annoying and you haven't brought up anything actually related to the gun control debate here to engage with anyway, every post of yours that I can see in here is just complaining about how unfair and hypocritical gun posters are. You have however successfully managed to derail the discussion and make it about yourself, so that's cool. You aren't trying to have a reasoned debate in here, as people like catbarf attested to. You should probably take inspiration from EcksDee. All I want is for you to absorb and process information. I don't care if it changes your mind, but I want you to stop trying to gaslight everyone.
Grenadiac isn't responsible for me dude. You could try engaging him on any of the substantive points he's made, or you could continue to hold a completely unrelated person responsible for the posts of a completely independent person.
You literally left out the qualifier that changes it from every to most.
I didn't get 'bent' about people simply ceasing posting. That's normal and I don't resent anybody for it. What pissed me off was the claim that the anti-gun/pro-gun-control crowd never made a compelling argument and were consistently resorting to platitudes and ideology whenever they were confronted to an argument, something which those thread endings directly contradict. That's why I brought them up. I've said this numerous times in this thread already and it should be pretty clear by now. I don't know why you keep misreading my points like this. You're right, I don't see that, that's the point of a private chat room. What I did see was this in response to my calling out of Geel: Which I can't interpret in any way that doesn't aim to support Geel's point. His shitposting seems to be supported by a large amount of posters here, which I'm sure you'll agree is an issue, and is why I felt the need to call him out. It's why I kept referring to him when talking to you, because all I had seen so far from you seemed to point to you agreeing with him, that is what I took issue with. I admit I could have misinterpreted your response (even if I don't see any alternative explanation as of now), but you can't reasonably expect me to know what you say to other posters in private. Thank you for clearing that up, though. It seems you went from claiming that my posts are devoid of meat in general to saying that I usually don't choose to make good posts, so that's progress at least. I still don't see how my choosing not to make good posts is the norm, nor do I see how I'm making a choice in those cases. I always try to formulate my points clearly, when it devolves into arguments it's typically because I either misread someone's post or someone did so with mine, but I never do it intentionally out of malice. You actually didn't address the two main points I've brought up until your last post. Better late than never, though, so I commend you for it. No idea where you get that "faux neutrality" vibe from. My whole point is that the caricaturing of the anti-gun/pro-gun-control side is very counter-productive to a respectful and honest debate. There's no point in taking part in debates and putting effort in argumentation if they're going to occur in such a hostile background, which is why I prioritize addressing that in this thread over arguments on gun control itself. Interpret that as making the discussion about me if you want to, just know that it is not the actual intention here. I could claim you are the one gaslighting here, considering you keep misinterpreting some of my points even after I've clarified them. But I don't, because I acknowledge that people can make mistakes and don't always interpret your statements in the way you intended. I think it's only fair that you'd do the same for me, and not accuse me of having malicious intents when it can simply be explained by errors on my part (and for which I apologize). I'm not opposed to absorbing and processing information. I wouldn't take the time to debate in other threads if that were the case. What I'm opposed to is biased unfair representation that doesn't acknowledge the efforts that some posters put into providing constructive arguments. But it seems you're opposed to that as well, as per your claims, so as someone who's okay with processing and absorbing that information, I recognize my mistake and apologize for the misunderstanding.
That claim, as far as I can tell, was never made by any serious debater. Your response to Geel was an aggressive generalization of all pro gun posters and not really a Geel-specific post. I didn't even realize until this last post from you that this was somehow specifically meant to be a rebuttal to Geel's post. The whole post is about "FP's pro gun posters" and not Geel. That's not fair and I'm not going to let you go without admitting that. I know you can't see it, but the point of me saying it is that your characterization of us is inaccurate. GrenädiacLast Thursday at 1:26 PM geel makes us look like retards by freaking out at every anti gun post GrenädiacLast Thursday at 1:30 PM geel is correct at heart but he doesnt know how to type like a rational person and hes making gun people look nutty ecksdee is well intentioned but wrong this thread is a mess GrenädiacLast Thursday at 2:05 PM im not expecting to change ecksdee's mind or sirius or anyone like that what matters is that we conduct ourselves like adults, convey the facts in a level manner, engage arguments honestly (even if they suck) and let readers make their own decisions I'm trying very hard to keep these guys in line and get them to stay open and engaged instead of shutting out honest arguments. That's why generalizing like you've been doing is going to make me read your posts in that very particular tone. The faux neutrality vibe comes from this post: Sheriffs are forming "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" refusing to enf.. It's the way this post is generally a really dumb unfair generalization of gun posters in a thread where actual friendly discussion had been going on before it, but you occasionally try to balance it by going "oh and sometimes anti gun posters do bad too ".
I had no way to know until your last post that you don't consider Geel to be a serious debater. Sure, it was an unfair and unsubstantiated generalisation on my part, in the same vein as your claim that I "usually don't choose to make good posts". Not a constructive way to encourage proper discussion either way. But if your point was that my depiction of pro-gun posters was a bad generalisation, I don't see the relevance of bringing up proboardslol or Coyote in your response. It would only be relevant if you were to use that to back up Geel's assertion that anti-gun/pro-gun-control posters make low-effort posts. Hence why I thought that your response was in support of his stance. On the other hand, ^this would have been much more relevant to the point you were making. It's not really an attempt at appearing neutral, I'm only correcting Geel using his post as a base, and doing so with even the slightest modicum of honesty implies recognising that yes, anti-gun posters do make poor arguments at times. Would you rather I go full partisan and pretend that the side I support never did any wrong instead? That's not the type of discourse I want to have, and neither do you, I assume.
I'm very left-wing and would be called "progressive" by most people in America (like that really means anything), but I've had people try to kill me for being trans so I'm very, very in favor of my legally disabled ass being able to carry a pistol with as many rounds in the magazine as can fit and be concealed. I want to reach people who need help before they become people that need to be stopped, gun control doesn't make disenfranchised groups less desperate. Homicide rates go up as wealth and options between the upper and lower classes become more disparate. I remember making a lot of anti-gun posts here way back when, but as I've grown older I've found myself staunchly pro-gun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.