Jump to content

lepercolony

Members
  • Content count

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

lepercolony last won the day on April 4

lepercolony had the most liked content!

About lepercolony

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

582 profile views
  1. YouTube Shooting

    thanks bud, that's actually why i said "i'd like to think." your point was already taken, and that was me acknowledging the line i draw in my head. i completely respect the fact that it's far easier for others to defend that guy than it is for me. like i said, i'm getting older, and absolutism just feels exhausting to me. i can legit feel my idealism fading away with my youth. at this rate i'll probably be the new McNasty in a year or so. #sorryofftopic
  2. YouTube Shooting

    can't say i'm in any rush to blame the victim here. i'm aware of unpopular choices YT made relatively recently which fucked with how content creators make their money. however -- and maybe this is just me getting older -- i can't drum up a lot of sympathy for folks who rely on posting videos for their income when mayyyybe they should've just gotten a real job. same deal with the Angry Party Pooper dog guy -- on one hand i'd like to think i'm a proponent of free speech, but on the other hand it's really difficult for me to sympathize with a "shitposter."
  3. Let's talk about Trump

    i wonder what the Trump administration is up to today . . . https://splinternews.com/video/3492895?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Splinter . . . yep, that makes sense.
  4. Let's talk about Trump

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-used-trump-org-email-stormy-daniels-arrangements-n855021 . . . are we great again yet?
  5. Skool daze

    i didn't get to read this since i'm apparently out of free WaPo articles, but judging by the headline i have to say i agree. imagine getting attacked by a mass shooter in school, who was arguably allowed to do what he did as easily as he did it due to our country's significant political resistance to hinder him in any meaningful way. now imagine getting attacked again, almost immediately, but this time it's with conspiracy smear tactics courtesy of that same political resistance seeking to deny the fact that you were just attacked by a mass shooter in school. i can't imagine it. the worst part of it is that i don't even have to imagine it, because that's what some motherless shitbags on the Right are doing as i type this. ultimately, it scares the shit out of me that a significant number of people in this country are apparently living happily in their very own private post-truth America, in which the facts they don't agree with can simply be supplanted by the "alternative facts" some fuck on YouTube dreamed up just for them. that should fucking scare everyone.
  6. Skool daze

    also gotta say i'm pretty impressed with these students. honestly don't think i could've taken on what they've taken on when i was their age. then again, i never had to do active shooting drills when i was in school either. it's pretty sad to realize that their tenacity was necessitated by their victimization. . . . nah, never mind, that's oversimplified. it's probably more accurate to say that their tenacity is the product of being born into a society in which their victimization is tolerated.
  7. Skool daze

    just wanted to jump in here and say i actually remember reading that, although i don't know where -- it was either WaPo or NYT (aka real news, in my opinion). i remember it because i did a mental double-take and had to re-read why the ACLU was against it, probably because in my mind they're typically aligned with liberal causes. their argument made sense to me, and it ultimately echoes the same argument gun rights advocates make when they frame this solely as a constitutional issue. can't infringe on "inalienable rights." . . . but then i hear on NPR this afternoon from a gun rights advocate who seemed to play both sides of that particular argument. according to him, owning an AR-15 is his inalienable right under the constitution as an American citizen. but he also proposed that the Parkland shooter should have been prevented from having the gun because his mental state disqualified him from being a responsible owner (note: i agree). i guess for that particular citizen -- the shooter -- the right is actually alienable for some gun rights advocates. the ACLU apparently disagrees. and as long as we're talking about individual rights, let's address the idea that this tragedy should be laid squarely at the feet of FBI/law enforcement and their internal failures. the FBI has already admitted there was a mistake in their process after receiving warnings about the shooter. but what people seem to miss is that regardless of that, no one can say with any certainty that FBI/law enforcement could have prevented what happened anyway despite the warnings. you can't just arrest the kid. there's no such thing as pre-crime, this isn't Minority Report. he had rights too. sorry Dana Loesch -- you're hot and all, but your case that this was a failure of law enforcement doesn't hold water with me when you conveniently sidestep the shooter's right to be innocent until proven guilty. (that said, i'm admittedly not sure if there's an actual law that could've prevented this, where they bring charges against you and grab your guns if you say enough crazy shit on social media and make enough threats. it seems like the shooter did a good amount of both, so maybe there was an opportunity to legally intervene -- i don't know. if anyone can illuminate me i'd be grateful, didn't come up with an answer after a cursory online search.) anyway. to me, this tends to lay bare the true feelings of some self-proclaimed gun rights advocates: "it's 100% a constitutional issue, but i'm also OK with compromising on the rights of others if it means i get to keep MY gun." it all really serves to weaken the constitutional argument. it's intellectually dishonest at best, unless you go full purist and insist that no class of citizen should have their access restricted. which is obviously dumb.
  8. Skool daze

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/02/15/florida-school-shooting-inside-the-school-von.cnn
  9. Skool daze

    absolutely. to be fair though, it's a minority culture in the context of the whole country: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ it's interesting that gun ownership -- a national sub-culture, by the numbers -- has somehow defined America in the eyes of the international community when the majority of Americans don't own guns. for me, acknowledging the fact that most Americans don't own guns naturally leads to the question of whether this issue can truly be boiled down to mental illness alone. if we can assume that mental illness occurs in equal proportions on average among both gun owners and non-gun owners, then why haven't we had a stabbing spree perpetrated by a non-gun owner every other day so far this year like we've had "mass shootings?" ["stabbing spree" is used as the counter-example here since a knife is a potentially lethal weapon that non-gun owners would have access to.] i'm just thinking, if all things were truly equal between gun owners and non-gun owners when it comes to the frequency of mental illness . . . then why are mass shootings a prevalent issue? [i'm not suggesting here that things aren't equal, and that mental illness is somehow more prevalent among gun owners -- that's a weak correlation, and kind of stupid in general.] that said, there do seem to be a number of other factors that would help answer that. for example, i don't see how one could avoid the conclusion that the tool used in these attacks will ultimately dictate the death toll. i have to assume that "success" as defined by a school shooter would be maximum casualties. so you can either grab a bunch of knives, learn how to build a bomb, or just buy a few guns. the choice would seem obvious. and we can't possibly ignore the copycat phenomenon either. the people who do these things actively research the means by which others have done the same thing before them. the more casualties incurred, the more notoriety gained, the more copycats you have. this would also help explain why we don't have the same frequency of mass stabbings -- they just don't happen as frequently, nor typically occur with the same body count. [morbid as it may sound, i think replacing our national mass shooting problem with a national mass stabbing problem could actually be considered progress in this country (if it meant that the death tolls weren't as high). but we'll never ban guns outright here, so i guess that's irrelevant.] here's another thing: a vast majority of Americans support universal background checks (like, 95%. http://thehill.com/homenews/360496-poll-majority-of-american-voters-favor-stricter-gun-laws). from the link: Ninety-five percent of voters support universal background checks for gun purchases, including 94 percent of those who live in gun-owning households, according to the latest Quinnipiac University survey. now, per the article it's worth noting that a significant number of those same folks are skeptical that tighter gun regulations would be successful in addressing the frequency of mass shootings. but hell, despite that, it would seem that almost everyone is willing to give it a fucking shot anyway. i don't think any reasonable person thinks we can completely eliminate this problem with legislation, but surely we can focus on prevention a bit more than we do now. so why don't we have universal background checks in this country when the national "culture" is almost unanimously supportive of having them? i don't think the answer to that particular question is necessarily "mental illness." i'm asking these questions openly and not directly at Bart -- already know where you stand, bruh. and for the record, no, i don't think the solution is as simple as "ban guns" either.
  10. oh Hawaii you crazy, with your liberal activist judges and legislators. https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-legislators-want-put-age-183200699.html Hawaii legislators want to put age restrictions on loot crates The video game industry is getting a wake up call over paid loot boxes. Last November, Belgium ruled that loot crates in Star Wars Battlefront II could be classified as gambling. Last month, a Washington Senator proposed a bill aimed at regulating the practice via the state's gambling commission. Now Hawaii is looking to limit these types of game systems with a couple of bills proposed by state legislators, one of which restricts sales of these types of games to the over-21 crowd. According to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, there are two pairs of bills aimed at games like EA's Star Wars Battlefront II. House Bill 2686 and Senate Bill 3024, seek to prohibit the sale of any games that include loot boxes that can be purchased with real money to anyone under 21 years of age. The second pair, House Bill 27272 and Senate Bill 3025, want game publishers to prominently label games that have randomized purchase systems and disclose the probability rates of specific loot box rewards. "I grew up playing games my whole life," State Representative Chris Lee told the Herald-Tribune. "I've watched firsthand the evolution of the industry from one that seeks to create new things to one that's begun to exploit people, especially children, to maximize profit."
  11. ohhhh shit, someone tell Drifter!
  12. James Damore did nothing wrong

    i think what's been keeping me from having an opinion on this is that i can't find anything online that speaks to how the memo actually got circulated. if you can link me up, i'd appreciate it. if the dude had a Conservative Manifesto typed up on a flash drive and then a co-worker stole it and forwarded it to everyone via mass e-mail, i could probably get behind the idea that he did nothing wrong. however, so far i've been inferring that it was a memo shared privately between like-minded colleagues that got exposed and made public -- strictly from an employment policy perspective, that would be where he went wrong because in doing so he actively publicized his personal views within the company, and those views happened to create what could be considered a hostile work environment. let's run with your premise here to see how we'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. let's say someone at work wrote up a memo and then circulated it, and the thesis of that memo is that white straight men are predisposed to be deficient at their profession because of who they are. would that be an issue? i assume it would be. also, with regard to your quote above, do you think they're oppressing him as a white straight man/Conservative, or are they oppressing him as an autistic jew? maybe both, simultaneously? i know those labels aren't mutually exclusive, so it could be both, but i think it serves to dilute your premise somewhat. on that note, in the spirit of inclusiveness, on behalf of all minority groups i'd like to welcome white straight men to the Oppressed Group Club. we have cards (just don't flash them around too often, it annoys people). //sarcasm i'm not actually oppressed. i'm just Asian.
  13. Let's talk about Trump

    Trump, likely to benefit from new bill, still refuses to release taxes https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-likely-benefit-new-bill-still-refuses-release-taxes-210746246.html man, y'all thought Hillary was corrupt . . . Donnie's just like, "hold my beer Big Mac, bruh."
  14. Net Neutrality

    how fucking dare you. just kidding that's how it looks in here too.
  15. Net Neutrality

    i don't think i've ever come across a more concrete example of this government's open contempt for/low opinion of its citizens than this. the fact that it was repealed (for now) despite the vast majority of Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, being against that very action is a pretty concrete example of our oligarchic government.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy