Cynetri (he/any)

never fails to amaze me how “progressive” types do a complete 180 as soon as someone mentions solving the homeless problem by giving them homes

edit: i rest my case

Technically yes, because half of all privately owned guns in the US are owned by 3% of people according to this CNN article. So while there are more guns than people in the US, legislation to regulate them would mostly affect a minority of the population.

That being said, you’re right that a lot of the problem with gun violence has to do with external factors such as poverty and extreme nationalism. An overwhelming majority of mass shooters are male and less overwhelmingly white which hints at a problem more to do with the environments they are raised or live in. If the problem was stricly gun access, we should expect more mass shootings to have been committed by women. In addition, half of all mass shootings in the US have occured since 2000, a third of which since 2010.

The rise of mass shootings seem to coincide with the rise of more general nationalist violence moreso than increased gun access, however more guns are being manufactured now than ever. I think the problem that needs addressed more is the public perception and marketing around guns and gun culture, because the past couple decades have seen people own guns more for the “tough guy” fake masculinity reasons rather than actual practicality. For further evidence to back myself up, pickup truck sales have risen in a similar way. Pickup trucks are marketed in almost the same way minus the whole potentially killing people part, not that they haven’t also been used in mass violence though.

A lot of gun regulation tends to target poor people too, intentionally or not. Tax stamps, fees and mandatory wait times assume someone has the money and ability to take time off to acquire a gun, and wealthy people (the ones who already own most guns) have both. Making it harder for poor people, who are disproportionately black, to arm themselves in a time where racist violence is hitting record highs and stories about police brutality hit front pages every week at least, is unfair.

All good I’m just one of those people that has an itch to interject with barely relevant context in a lot of discussions lmao

Nah fuck this go back to the old site

capital R Reddit user shit right here

not to be that guy (i definitely am) but philosophy is political, just less obviously so

💪💪💪GODOT STAY WINNING💪💪💪

Ah yes, New York south of Texas

The prevelance of computers are inherently linked with the corporate desire to minimize cost and maximize productivity and profit. The origin of computers comes from military use; first seen in WW2 to calculate angles for artillery use and crack codes as with Enigma. Later, financial and educational institutions saw an ability to reduce labor cost by using computers to automate some record keeping. Why would they be interested in reducing cost? Capitalism, of course! And who were the ones programming these machines? Mostly, wealthy white men. You see, because computers were still giant, expensive machines, they required a college education to learn to use them. At this point, this was the 50s/60s, and non-white people had very little wealth due to, yknow, all that discrimination stuff. Plus, wealthy people especially back then were also very misogynistic (“i hate my wife” jokes, anyone?) And these wealthy whites were sometimes passionate for the industry, and as computers miniturized, they brought these minicomputers home, where they could use them for much more casual use. Enter the 70s, and these computer users start to make video games. Companies for this new fad start to show up. Fast forward a decade and people start making these new home computers play recorded audio and videos too, and before long, the baby dances. But not everyone had the money for home computers in the 90s, so not everyone is aware of the baby - which is where the discrimination part plays in. Most of the people who experienced the dancing baby in its prime were wealthy, majority white families, so the experience was unfortunately not universal. Or fortunately, idk lmao

Of course I’m stretching super hard, but politics are everywhere when you look into it.

.world and sjw users when they ask to defederate after defederating

no but trans people get death threats from “anti-tankies”

Just like me fr (except sometimes its a twinkie)

deleted by creator

Yup, they didn’t comply with the license Mastodon uses (Affero General Public License) by not publishing the source code and making it accessible via something like a button and they got a legal notice to either add one or get sued

Truth Social is built with Mastodon fun fact lmao

Yea i kinda forgot the workers control part whoops

I also made a mistake and said “direct democracy for poor people” instead of “workers” so I went and edited that. whoops

Socialism is an economic system defined by production of goods and services according to their need, in contrast to capitalism where they’re produced for profit. Two totally different, incompatible systems

I’m saying it’s a very obvious conclusion to make for anyone who does research on him

Even alternatehistoryhub, infamous youtuber known for his weird conservative takes, came to this conclusion

Specifically “dictatorship of the proletariat”, which was basically an 1800s gothic way to say “direct democracy for workers”. Marx is somewhat infamous for the way he makes his ideas sound scarier than they are

And to clarify, most revolutions fail or adopt bureaucracy primarily to defend themselves from outside, capitalist influence, power corruption probably plays a part too but state power used by socialists is actually part of the plot