• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      137 months ago

      That’s the fun thing; go far enough left and find that guns become an important tool for the proletariat to protect itself from the ruling class.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      97 months ago

      I agree with all of those except I don’t like guns. Don’t want nothing to do with them, and those that do should be required to take mental and physical competency tests as well as mandatory registration. I wouid also impose a minimum 5 year prison sentence for letting one of your guns fall into somone else’s hands owning a gun should come with massive responsibility to keep the gun secure.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          87 months ago

          So everyone just gets guns? I should carry a gun with me at all times and live in fear of my neighbor? This is an absurd viewpoint, guns don’t deter shit, if someone wants to shoot me, owning a gun won’t stop them. Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work with gun ownership because if I own a gun, and you shoot me, I’m not shooting back because I’m dead.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            47 months ago

            If all your neighbors have guns, you might want to get one too, or you’re at a disadvantage when they gang up to kill you.

            That’s why it’s like nuclear proliferation.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Why would they need to gang up to kill me? They have guns, they can kill me damn near instantly even if I have a gun myself

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            37 months ago

            This.

            Gun fetishists live in this wild west fantasy where someone planning on shooting is going to slowly and deliberately approach while announcing their intentions so you can respond and have a showdown ensuring only the gunliest gunner wins. If somebody’s going to shoot you, you’re just going to get shot - probably before you’re even aware, or at least without sufficient preparation time to grab your gun or pull your gun and aim.

            These people just tell themselves fairy tales to justify their hoarding.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 months ago

              Basically this, people should consider disarming when the police and military do as well

              Until then, nobody should have a pure monopoly on violence

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I don’t trust a single cop, but I also don’t trust many people to be allowed to have guns either. If you look at countries where guns are not readily available there is much less gun crime, and any guns that people get are coming from the US because we hand them out basically for free. If the US has stricter gun control it would most likely lower gun crime around the world even.

              Edit: another thing I want to mention, I don’t call cops if it can be at all avoided precisely because they do carry guns. Once you I produce a gun into a situation, it becomes instantly more dangerous and unless it is something like a mass shooting or a violent robbery I’m not gonna call the cops for shit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      social umbrellas

      Treat the symptoms not the cause

      support all wars against bullies because pacifism does nothing to stop them otherwise.

      Simplify geopolitics into “bullies”, support the actions of NATO/US as though they’re not “bullies”

      Pretty much liberal yeah

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        167 months ago

        Treat the symptoms not the cause

        Treat both. They usually give you a painkiller while setting your bones.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Wait until they find out that there’s a ton of “we don’t know what the underlying cause is” and “we don’t have a cure for that yet” in medicine. In which case you have to do your best treating the symptoms – which is also true outside of the world of medicine.

          Sometimes a temporary fix buys you time to do it right. Sometimes a perfect or even “really good” solution isn’t feasible for myriad reasons: so you do the best with what you have.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            87 months ago

            It’s just such a stupid false dichotomy. Give the man the fish and teach him to fish. It’s a lot easier to learn on a full stomach.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              07 months ago

              You expect leftists to do anything but idly daydream about the day that a socialist revolution finally and magically falls into their laps?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 months ago

        Treat the symptoms not the cause

        I definitely prefer my symptoms being treated while waiting to get the cure

      • @lingh0e
        link
        English
        47 months ago

        Treat the symptoms not the cause.

        You’ll find that almost all liberals also want to treat the cause, but they are blocked at every step by conservatives and centrists.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Those are all very liberal-minded interests and there’s nothing really wrong with them. The left largely agrees as well but would go further to the structural causes for why these issues are important, questioning the very economic and material arrangements for which these issues are contingent on. IE why does our economic system require people to be poor? What are the class dynamics behind these issues etc.

      Liberalism is the ideology of free markets and individual freedom, but those mechanisms are contingent on exploitation.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        why does our economic system require people to be poor

        Let me guess, you’re from US. Or from Canada, and are stuck in US narrative.

        Your economic system (or rather society) has never ditched slavery, which is nowadays masquerading as a penal system. Poor people are easy to enslave.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          37 months ago

          I think you’re missing how I’m rhetorically posing that question to the preceding comment and not sincerely wondering myself…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I think that makes you a leftist who hasn’t yet realized that liberalism doesn’t want many of those things.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        77 months ago

        Most Americans still don’t realize there’s a difference. I’ve been hoping the recent conflict in the Middle East would wake some people up to the major differences between libs and leftists - it sure did for me.

        Leftists are literally losing their job for not supporting Israel and yet liberals are still out here confused about what’s even going on.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 months ago

          Liberals prefer negative peace - the absence of conflict - over positive justice.

          If you prefer positive justice, you aren’t a liberal.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          67 months ago

          They care about them in a performative way. The minute it stands in their way or they can’t use it as a tool to get your support to gain or maintain power they will immediately drop the act. Before Oberfell even Obama wouldn’t give a clear statement of support for gay marriage because it was seen as political poison.

          • DarkGamer
            link
            fedilink
            -17 months ago

            They care about them in a performative way. The minute it stands in their way or they can’t use it as a tool to get your support to gain or maintain power they will immediately drop the act.

            Standing up for trans acceptance and rights is the right thing to do but it is by no means a winner of a political platform:

            The public is divided over the extent to which our society has accepted people who are transgender: 38% say society has gone too far in accepting them, while a roughly equal share (36%) say society hasn’t gone far enough. About one-in-four say things have been about right. Underscoring the public’s ambivalence around these issues, even among those who see at least some discrimination against trans people, a majority (54%) say society has either gone too far or been about right in terms of acceptance.
            https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

            Democrats haven’t dropped it yet, despite anti-trans sentiment being one of the Right’s favorite things to rally around.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      27 months ago

      Sounds liberal af to me; definitely not a leftist.

      Long live the American arms trade and long live the empire!