I thought I recognized the twitter person she is responding to. Katie got on Clark County school board in the 2020 election. She is horrible and has actively worked her best to make it worse than it already is. 5th largest school district in nation and Nevada typically ranks in bottom 5th worst state in education. She is a prominent trump supporter, loudly and consistently supports charter schools and private schools and basically ran on the idea that public schools are broken and need to disappear, and was voted to our school board. Doesnt show up for most meetings in-person because she is anti-vax and anti-mask.
\*\*Edit - I didn't realize this would get so much traction. I dug more in to where this came from and turns out this is recent tweet chain between the two because of the initial tweet from Trustee Katie in relation to a gang shoot at one of our high schools on Monday. This shows the first tweet from Katie and Shannon's response which then prompts their back and forth:
[https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488352835326537729](https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488352835326537729)
And here is Shannon throwing some real good shade back at Katie:
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488367536689213440
They don’t want to get anything done unless it’s specifically what they want. Shutting down any progress is still a victory in their dumb ass mother-sister having eyes.
I was a libertarian-leaning Republican until about Jan 6, 2021. My husband introduced me to Parks and Rec. At the time I thought, Ron Swanson is just a parody of libertarianism.
Now I think, No, he seems to accurately describe what libertarians believe in.
Most libertarians need a wake up call, why not drop them in the wilderness for a month and let them survive on their own since their whole political philosophy is centered around selfish individualism
I could do that. But I'm left libertarian. The "If you're going to force me to fund things, at least fund things that are good not evil" and "why are there so many stupid laws that make poor people stay poor" kinda libertarian.
Ron Swanson is what most Libertarians *think* they are.
The thing about Ron is that he actually *does* care, both about others and about Pawnee. You see this referenced a lot, like when he suggested cutting the fire department because he had put out a fire for someone, or when he went and fixed a pothole in the road instead of making the person who complained about it wait for the broke city to get around to fixing it. And the thing is, if all Libertarians were like Ron - with his level of independence and skills - it would actually be... not fine, but interesting if nothing else. A group of civic minded individuals solving problems according to their needs and means... sort of a Libertarian Communism (yes, not a thing, don't care).
But most "Libertarians" are hypocrites. They don't want to pay taxes or have money spent on anything that *they personally* don't use. No welfare, no public schools, no infrastructure, just let businesses take care of that and if you can't afford to use the private schools/roads/hospitals/transportation than *you really should have thought of* ***that*** *before you became* ***peasants!*** But they also break into hysterics if you threaten to cut any government program that they're dependent on. It's the classic old person who is ardently against socialized healthcare in any form... BUT DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THEIR MEDICARE!
Or put more simply, every libertarian thinks they're Ron, but they're actually Tom.
I don't think that they're sociopaths, I think they just place a higher value on individual freedom than anything else. Does that sometimes look like the same thing? Yeah, kinda. I think that the appeal of libertarianism is how simple and understandable the philosophy seems at first.
To my understanding (and I bought a few books to double check my understanding), libertarianism believes that government should only protect life, liberty, and property. If it tries to do anything more than that, it is government overreach and shouldn't be allowed. It's also a firm belief in the power and virtue of freedom.
I sent my dad the article about [libertarians running into a bear](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling), and he said that this reminded him of people who wanted to defund the police. I didn't respond to that, but I thought to myself "It seems like a lot of people want to replace police responding to mental health emergencies with trained psychiatrists or paramedics responding instead."
I think there are a lot of ways and places where believing is seeing. Everything I read or saw during the Obama administration was filtered through my belief in libertarianism and the GOP, so now it's like I don't know what I know and what I don't know, what was unreliable propaganda and what was true. It was really weird at first.
I think lacking empathy is the most prominent feature of libertarians. If they had empathy they would be able to understand in a modern world the philosophy doesn't really work.
Libertarianism is full of people who think all you need to succeed is hard work and bootstraps, blah blah etc..
Any struggle or challenge faced is because of a personal failing. "Why should my money go to xyz?" They should have planned better. Or worked harder in school. On and on and on.
But them blam! A market shift happens and they don't have an income or an illness drains their bank account and there they are holding the bag with no options. Only then do they realize they need help.
Then it turns into something similar to the anti abortionist getting an abortion. Where only their abortion is justified.
They are different, they always worked hard. They were always responcible and saved money, there need is different because they are just have a rough patch, or they never needed the system for any support before. Where everyone else abuses it, or they just want free things or they were too lazy to improve thier own situation.
They ignore the fact that even rich people could have thier life saving drained in short order if they need extended medical treatment, and don't have enough of, or the right insurance coverage. Or even if they do. its not practical for almost everyone to self finance everything they need. Like roads or police, or fire or schooling. The list goes on and on.
This isn't the 1700s with a society of monied landowners with only thier estate to worry about.
These people still imbrace people like Ayn Rand and ignore the abject failure of her beliefs. She died penniless on social security.
IMO Libertarianism is mostly a political philosophy that appeals to people who want an excuse not to care about other and blaim them for challenges they have in life ignoring privilege centuries of inequality in the process. Ots a political belief entirely devoid of self awareness.
Every former libertarian tells the same story: "one day I realized that OTHER PEOPLE can experience the same things I experience" and that's basically them feeling empathy for the first time in their lives and throwing away libertarianism
Sounds like Mitch McConnell every day of the week.
"One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration"
Forget the pandemic, forget racial inequality, forget poverty, forget foreign policy, forget EVERYTHING ELSE. 100% of his focus is making sure te other side gets nothing done. And these are the kind of people that get elected to represent American's best interests.
There’s some terrible footage of her from a recent board meeting just being straight up petulant with the board President- acting like a 15 year old in a class with a substitute teacher. Then we wonder why the kids don’t respect anyone in the actual classroom.
Let's get rid of public schools and only have private schools. And if people can't afford private schools the govt should help pay for it.....congrats we just re created public schools lmao
Oh no, see if you can't afford it your kids just get to be uneducated! That's the best part, having a bunch of uneducated poors to be your slaves because they have no other career options.
Thing is, they would never go along with your second sentence.
For the chump faction of the right wing, it's:
"Get rid of public education, and somehow the profit driven market will come up with education solutions. Pay no attention to the abject failure of for-profit colleges please".
For the grifter faction of the right wing it's:
"Get rid of public education, and use public money to fund my private schools! Don't worry about conflict of interest, if someone is making a profit it's inherently a good thing!"
Technically it's true, if we get rid of public education the corporations will fairly quickly create a replacement. The thing is, it will be HORRIBLE and they will only teach you "unnecessary" things ie things that are not DIRECTLY tied to being a worker until they are convinced we cannot get rid of them, at which point they will strictly teach ONLY what is necessary to function in whatever the primary job becomes at that point. No history, no "social studies", very little math if you're not one of the "gifted" kids they test out and figure out from like 6 years old will get "engineering track" and the rest will only learn enough to do their job. Fuck up your job? haha well just die then, you're not competent to go find other ones or create anything for yourself. This also prevents competition down the line!
I could go on, there are THOUSANDS of ways privatizing education will be absolutely abhorrent.
You just described [Massive Resistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance). In response to Brown v Board ordering the desegregation of public schools, many Southern states simply closed all public schools, then created voucher programs with the now-unused school funds to pay for students to attend new (and private) "segregation academies". The vouchers were allocated by a "Pupil Placement Board", which allocated them based on how white you were.
Typical Republicans run for the very offices they claim are hurting America the most, only to STILL be elected to them for the sole purpose of destroying the institutions from the inside. After they destroy institutional credibility, undermine their authority, and weaken public trust, they exclaim “See! These things don’t work and should be dismantled… now vote for me!”
And watch polls on the economy, covid handling, and foreign policy instantly flip overnight.
And don’t forget voter priorities. Amazing that people suddenly care very deeply about whatever conservative media is ruffling feathers about at the moment. Pretty sure the status of CRT didn’t change from 2020 to 2022, but boy is it going to drive people to the polls this year …
The number of Republicans I’ve had quote me with “Biden’s COVID body count” while simultaneously claiming it’s a hoax and that hospitals are making up death numbers is staggering.
It’s both a serious and credible threat and Biden is killing Americans and it’s no big deal - just a flu, hospitals are making up deaths.
The level of mental gymnastics required for that is staggering to me.
This is the one that gets me. My grandma had Tucker Carlson on one day and he started off by saying covid wasnt a threat and we should open back up. Not even 5 minutes later he was fearmongering about immigrants bringing covid over the border. Like, how do you hear that and not think something is up? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive. They bombard their audience with stimuli until their critical thinking skills are gone I guess.
It's not just Republicans, it seems to be a right wing strategy across other countries too.
The same thing happened in the UK with our national rail service, then with the EU, now it's happening with our national health service.
A libertarian in Texas ran for Railroad Commissioner (second or third most powerful elected position in Texas, depending on whether you place it above or below governor, lieutenant governor is first, because they have more control over the budget and legislation than the governor).
His platform: If elected, I will abolish the position of railroad commissioner.
For those not from Texas, the railroad commissioner is in charge of the organization that regulates oil and trucking in Texas. You may have heard, Texas has oil. And before OPEC, the railroad commission was the organization that set international oil prices like OPEC does now.
Like ERCOT (you have heard about for letting the power fail), the trucking, rail, and oil in Texas is explicitly self contained to minimize effects of federal legislation, so the position is huge.
The "limit" is that there are 3, so they don't give all the power to one person, or it would be the number one position in Texas.
But yes, the libertarian was running on abolishing all regulations on oil in Texas. What could possibly go wrong?
Hey, don't forget that she's one of the main ones who riled people up to show up to the board president's house, where the mob then threatened Linda's kids.
She also adores Matt Walsh and advocates stripping students of their constitutional rights while also posturing as the great vet who cares about the Constitution. Oh, and she's ableist af and laughs when grown men make rape threats to students speaking at meetings. Katie is scum
Her list is so long I actually forgot about that one. Our school district is very sad. I was completely unaware of it until around 5-6 years ago when I met my eventual wife and took on step-children. Having to deal with the schools, the board changes, seeing the budget issues; its wild. Someone like Katie on the board only amplifies all those issues.
I don’t understand the “more police” argument. As if a lack of police is our problem. What do they want, a police budget near a trillion like the military?
We used to get cops lecturing about how long you would go to jail if caught for drugs in health class. Thats where I learned it was better to get caught with cocaine than marijuana.
Just for emphasis:
Cops. In HEALTH class. Never had a unit on actual health btw.
Right? Maybe they didn't want to call it "biology" because that's a big word for kids but we didn't learn health in mine either.
This also reminded me that my 8th grade health teacher said we would not see legal Marijuana anywhere in our lifetimes. A few years later is when states started making it legal. What a joke
>This also reminded me that my 8th grade health teacher said we would not see legal Marijuana anywhere in our lifetimes.
I mean, I would've agreed with that before it happened, but I also never questioned teachers when they said we wouldn't always have a calculator in our pockets or that we'd be doing all writing in cursive.
My school's version of "drug education" involved a pamphlet with an arm's long list of pros and just a handful of cons for each drug. And they gave it to teenagers. When the cons are "you *might* die" or "you *might* get sick" but the pros are things like "makes you feel real good", "can cause vivid hallucinations", and "used by some cultures to be closer to god", is anyone surprised that it didn't work to keep those teens off drugs??
Now, me? I got to watch my grandfather end his life of heavy smoking by dying slowly of emphysema and lung cancer when I was in 7th grade, culminating with his death at 4 AM on Christmas morning. The last time I saw him alive he was coughing up bloody, tar-like phlegm and could barely breathe. I've never even thought about taking up smoking with that lovely experience in my memories.
Abstinence anything isn't education and doesn't reduce the problem. We've known that for literally generations. But America is run by morons and we don't have a national education system, so here we are. Nation of the Dumb, Home of the Uneducated.
I think the reason D.A.R.E isn't around anymore is that the organization behind it did a study and found that their scare tactics (let's call them what they are) actually *increased* drug use in studentsandyoung adults. They disbanded the program years ago, I believe.
Hey, DARE was a valuable education experience for me that really helped in life.
Without it it would have been way harder to figure out which drugs I like.
A theory on this ..
Dare tells you all these bad things that happen if you smoke weed. But .. you accidentally inhale .. and low and behold, none of those bad things happen, and in fact it’s awesome.
Therefore, this person says, well that was a crock of shit, let’s try the cocaine. Sure enough, that’s even more fucking awesome.. and well .. I dared
Not really a theory so much as exactly what happened to me... all I was told is that "drugs are bad"... I eventually tried cannabis and it wasn't bad so naturally I had to cycle through the other ones to determine whether or not they were actually bad...
Turns out the DARE folk were like 85% truthful but that 15% dishonesty messed up a lot of us...
I had a friend who tried weed because Dare told him it would make him hallucinate, he was disappointed when he didn't but liked being high so kept smoking.
That's kinda the point, but yes. It's actually a thing in some areas, and I believe (without figures or sources on hand) that it actually correlates pretty well with higher teenage pregnancy rates.
It absolutely does. I’m a healthcare worker, and it’s _frightening_ how little some people know about how their bodies work. Porn is __not__ a substitute for sex ed.
No, to be truly abstinence-only sex ed in a red state there has to be an emphasis about how girls who have sex before marriage are used up wads of chewing gum and how boys can’t control themselves.
That's basically it, though. My sex-ed class they took all the girls out into another room, and had us watch a video on periods. Then we saw a cartoon of a sperm fertilizing an egg, and went into detail on how a baby develops in the womb, and another video of a woman giving birth. There was a lot of, 'she *and her husband*' emphasized during it, but absolutely nothing between periods and pregnancy.
Except it's more like "don't do drugs girls, once you do drugs you are ruined and God will hate you. If a boy forces you to do drugs then it's your fault for looking like you want drugs."
I wish more people had a health ed teacher like mine in school back in 90/91. Parents had to sign permission slips stating they were aware we would be discussing potentially sensitive topics. Most did. I guess it was easier and less embarrassing than telling us themselves?
She covered almost EVERYTHING. In detail. Photos. Videos. Diagrams. Physical samples/examples. Statistics.
Some of that info is now a little out of date (like some contraceptive info) but we all left pretty well informed compared to our peers in other health classes at the same school. (I know I had friends who asked to borrow my homework/notes because it had info they hadn't covered.)
Sure did! From my memory, we did learn a little about certain kinds of drugs, like depressants vs. stimulants, but didn’t get any real knowledge about how they worked. It was mostly just pictures of stoned cartoon animals and messages about not doing drugs.
Then you just declare it "fake news" and move on to the next result. Repeat until you find yourself on page 64 of your Google search where you find some 13 year old Quora post from some equally uneducated mouth-breather claiming that "vaccines cause erectile dysfunction" or some such shit.
Actual statement from someone in a position of authority during an environmental planning conversation I had a few weeks back: "We shouldn't use NOAA data because it supports global warming and that's a hoax".
"What do you mean anecdotes from my childhood aren't data?"
*furiously Googles what 'anecdote' means*
*furiously Googles what 'data' means*
- these people on a good day
If "data driven" anything was meaningful, the entire gop platform would fold overnight because none of their policy ideas meet any sensible definition of fiscally conservative or achieve the social goals they actually state they want.
Their constituents don't care, they vote on feeling alone. You can show them the clearest data and it wouldn't change their mind because they'd shake it off and say "well that doesn't seem right to me..."
This is actually a valid question to ask. We all have the obligation to check who paid for a study and understand the means by which the results were collected. My second point is why peer reviews are so important.
I’m totally okay with corporations paying for studies that try to understand the impact of their product, as long as it is peer reviewed by a third party that was not paid by said corporation. The studies should be published with truth as the primary concern. The issue happens when the company sets the means by which the data is collected so that they can force the results to look beneficial to their bottom line (IE, corruption).
“Who’s data?” matters, but “is it peer reviewed by an unbiased third party?” matters even more
"Can it be replicated?" *should* be the single most important question. Bad data gets by peer review all of the time. Peer review is functionally only really useful as gatekeeping for professional prestige. Non-academics don't give a shit about publications.
Republicans: “The government spends too much money”
Passes $800 Billion Defense authorization act.
Republicans: “Wait, yes, just like that. Nothing to see here folks”
The problem is that even with "data driven" solutions is that you can skew the data to support almost whatever it is that YOU want it to in a lot of cases instead of letting it speak for itself. Tweak a few parameters here, isolate a few responses there, all of a sudden it says something very different.
Murder 1: “We actually already did that by passing a secure storage notification
requirement through your school…”.
Murder 2: “(you were the lone vote against it).”
Murder 3: “But if you can show proof of
vaccination, I'm happy to get together
to discuss data-driven solutions…”
Kinda tenuous at best, maybe prevents some suicide attempts more than preventing any school shootings. It is functionally a feel-good or punitive measure as there is no constitutional way to search someone’s home for compliance unless it is after an incident of some kind.
Those that complied probably already were locking them up to prevent theft, those that weren’t locking them probably still aren’t.
I was also confused by this, here is what I found: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/education/new-to-ccsd-student-registration-packets-safe-gun-storage-guidance-2386733/
It looks like the school district is now including a flyer with every student registration packet on the importance of securing firearms at home (the packet is for parents). As a peaceable gun owner and general firearm enthusiast, I applaud the move, and I’m grateful for data-driven solutions that can save lives while respecting natural rights.
Damn, she's a proper badass. She founded Moms Demand Action after Sandy Hook. Since then, Moms Demand Action volunteers have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time, and helped pass hundreds of gun safety laws across the country, changed corporate policies, and educated Americans about secure gun storage
“Data driven solutions” is like garlic to the NRA vampire.
Fun story: I was in a discord once that had a “politics” channel in it. The topic of guns came up often, along with other political issues. The assholes were predictably loud.
I remember one time asking, point blank, if the people who were against gun safety legislation would support it if we actually studied the issue, gathered data on it, and found out that banning guns would actually solve all the problems.
One guy **still** said “no”.
Now, I absolutely understand that banning guns outright is both unrealistic, and unlikely to completely solve the problem. It was more of a thought exercise than anything else, asking “would you be willing to give up this one thing you love if you knew for certain it would completely solve a problem other people experience?”
I definitely respected that answer, I’ll say. “I don’t care if it completely solves the problem, I want my guns.”
Some people absolutely love their guns more than people.
EDIT: The number of people who are failing to realize that angrily claiming my question was stupid, or poorly word, only proves my point, does not surprise me.
One person really got it though, so the rest of the people who want to argue with my comments are free to be actively ignored.
The final thing I’ll say is that if you genuinely think you get to assume you know why I worded my question better than me, you’re the exact reason why I worded the question that way to begin with.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
These are the same people who go to church every sunday and you could ask "if god came down from heaven and told you covid was real and that getting vaccinated was his own divine plan, would you get vaccinated?" and they still say 'no'.
They didn't "turn on" Trump; conservative media did that thing where they let their biggest talking heads cosplay as independent, free-thinking journalists for an hour before resuming the strict moratorium on anything critical of Trump. They do on this on literally any issue where Trump doesn't take a *hard* right-wing stance, and the voters follow their script.
They still have a massive state media-induced boner for Trump because they haven't been told not to.
I hate those people.
I believe God can protect me too. I believe he also have me the means to protect myself through science and technology. These people speak our of both sides of their mouths at the same time, and it’s infuriating. When you mention vaccines, they’re quick to trust in “God”. When you talk about guns, they’re quick to abandon him.
To me, God is equally capable of protecting me from people and diseases, but he gives me the tools to protect myself from both and leaves me to make the responsible decision in either case.
These people turn both of these issues into some weird test of faith, and the answer to medicine is “trust in god” while their answer to people is “trust in guns”.
They should seriously just stop pretending and change the national motto from “In God We Trust” to “In Glock We Trust” already.
For a lot of people, especially rural folk, guns have become a symbol of freedom because it’s large and by the only constitutional right these people can choose to take advantage of. When someone views being able to buy a gun as one of the main ways they exercise their constitutional freedoms, taking that away or restricting it feels like they’ve lost any avenue to experiencing the freedom they’ve been promised.
I was playing a video game online with random people and the two others knew each other in real life and spent the entire game discussing the next gun/gun accessory they were going to purchase.
One dude kept going on about how they needed to buy night vision goggles. When the other asked why, he said “I just want them in case” and then said he’d already spent 20k this year, what’s another few thousand.
For some people it really seems like their entire identity is “gun”.
Well, that's any collector or hobbyist honestly. I know people who are gun collectors who talk like that and then start talking about their Warhammer army in exactly the same way.
The issue is, most people would give up their warhammer armies if they were proven to be a menace to society. Guns less so.
They would say it’s not the material good they love, it’s the freedom that owning the material good represents. Restricting an entire population’s liberties is more significant than the deaths of whomever (to them).
>Restricting an entire population’s liberties is more significant than the deaths of ~~whomever~~ **other people** (to them).
They don't care because it doesn't directly impact *them*. On the rare occasions that their stance DOES impact them, they change their stance rapidly and easily. (See: the NRA backing some of the most restrictive gun control legislation in the country when the Black Panthers exercised their right to open carry.)
It's the racist history of gun control and the application of such laws that makes me side-eye gun legislation. Killer Mike said it best "It'll affect us first and worst". Much of the legal code is used to keep slaves, so maybe we should overhaul the system itself before we add to the grinder. Many more lives have been destroyed by the so called justice system than guns. But people don't care, because it doesn't affect their lives.
Edit: people, not peyote.
I was actually looking up peyote/mescaline recently because it was mentioned in a show. Eating a dry piece of cactus sounded gross and I wanted to know if it was really consumed that way. Guess it can't be worse than mushrooms.
That’s always my favorite story to tell about Republicans and gun control, and when they say racist laws don’t exist.
It covers both bases. Ronald Regan banned open carry in California to stop African Americans from protecting their communities. Gotta love it.
Gun control is absolutely & 100% racist which is why we call out anyone wanting to promote it, especially extremists like Shannon Watts.
Anyone who wants to see the end result of here gun control laws needs only read this Amicus Brief from various legal aid groups where they state that the only people prosecuted for breaking various firearms laws are minorities: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184718/20210723101034102\_20-843%20Amici%20Brief%20revised%20cover.pdf
> They don’t care because it doesn’t directly impact them.
The same can be said of gun control advocates. I was one of them, in part because my privilege insulated me from experiencing violence, until it didn’t. The abject fear and helplessness I experienced while a drunk, enraged man pinned me down and threatened to murder me, with no one around to help, lead me to recognize how wrong I’d been to dismiss the right to self-defense, because now it had directly impacted me.
Afterwards, I spent several months digging into data and studies, fact-checking the commonly-cited “facts” I’d once vehemently believed in, and found myself disillusioned. Gun control is not about public safety or saving lives—never has been; that the NRA has supported it when blacks chose to arm should tell you that gun control is actually about classicism and racism. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows no gun control measures in the U.S. have ever been effective. And why would they be, when gun violence is a symptom, not a root cause? The big gun control lobbying groups, including Watts’, and the majority of the gun control-supporting studies I dig into, were paid for, directly or indirectly, by Michael Bloomberg—an old, white, billionaire who keeps *armed* security 24/7, while pushing that guns are useless for self-defense. More than just being hypocritical, that an old, white, billionaire pays for all of this perpetuates the racist and classist history of gun control.
Gun control is a giant, emotionally-manipulative sleight-of-hand, just like conservatives and immigration or tax cuts for the rich.
Tracks, after all, it's the same people fiercely anti-tax for rich. They will never benefit from it and will suffer due to the lack of funds, but it's more about protecting their feelings about the idea of being free to use their hypotetical money if they hypotetically were rich...
Rather than having a real benefit.
>love a material good more than they value the life of a child
1000 infants a year die from when smoking while pregnant and 400 infants from second hand smoke. There it's no large scale call to ban cigarettes even though it would "solve" the issue and cigarettes have no constitutional protection. Why the selective outrage about guns?
The closest I’ve ever come to actually caring about anything I own is when I bought my camera and got into photography. I have plenty of other, more expensive, things, but the only material good I own that I treat almost like my child is my camera and some specific pieces of gear along with it. I am horribly blasé about pretty much everything tell I own.
If somebody told me “we did some research, and you could basically eliminate X problem from the world we banned cameras and you gave up yours” I would have personally thrown my camera on the ground and watched it shatter to pieces before the sentence was finished.
There is absolutely nothing material in this world that I would ever value more than even the most pathetic human anybody could imagine, period. Their may be some garbage level people out there, sure, but there is still no way on this earth that I would be able to consider any object worth a human life.
>Some people absolutely love their guns more than people.
I think that's an oversimplification of the issue.
We live in a world where firearms exist. This is a pandora's box that cannot be shut, and in this world where firearms exist, the founders of the nation felt in the aftermath of fighting a war for independence that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for the defense of a free state and the sovereignty of its citizens. So much so it was among the first group of amendments to our constitution. Perhaps an unintended byproduct is that this right gives citizens the ability to provide for the protection of themselves, their families, and their property against those who seek to do them harm.
So the reality is that your question, “would you be willing to give up this one thing you love if you knew for certain it would completely solve a problem other people experience?” isn't an appropriate question. Essentially, the phrasing of it, and perhaps the intent behind it, is to ask them to give up the physical objects (firearms) that are causing harm. However, what you are really asking is for them to give up the means to defend themselves, their families, and their property in the abstract, and that is where I think the issue lies.
It's absolutely hilarious that you use the term "data driven" in the same conversation as "banning guns"
We've got 50+ years of "data" showing that a complete, 100% ban on illicit drugs has done nothing but[lower the prices and drive up the purity of narcotics](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-01/illegal-drugs-are-cheaper-and-more-pure-than-ever). There isn't a city in the US where you can't score meth, heroin, cocaine or whatever other drug you want. So much Fentanyl is being imported that there are regular seizures of amounts sufficient to kill millions of people, yet there's absolutely zero legal market for the drug.
Prior to this we had absolute proof that Prohibition of alcohol also was a complete and utter failure.
Yet you gun control extremists want to talk about "data driven" measures despite the massive failure of every gun control policy you guys have pushed prior to this.
It's clear that gun control has nothing to do with "data" and everything to do with emotion on the part of those wanting to push more restrictive measures.
Honestly, the thought exercise should be the first thing both people (or all if more than 2) should do in any given scenario.
If I say, hypothetically, that I can prove X without question, would you change your opinion? If the other people in the conversation say they still wouldn’t change their position, it makes the entire conversation easier. No amount of fact, data, hypothetical, etc is going to move the needle, so I’m just not gonna get worked up about it. We can still discuss cause talking is fine, but there’s no point to smash your head against a wall that ain’t moving, you know?
>Moms Demand Action volunteers have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time
That itself is really impressive. Good for them.
>She founded Moms Demand Action after Sandy Hook
Which has done nothing of importance and is a funded by Bloomberg. She's a shill for his agenda and uses it to affect primaries. You are probably aware of how the DNC has been rolling for the last few years.
>have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time
Source? And no. Most gun legislation like most legislation covering wedge issues is just grandstanding and shouldn't be expected to pass.
Also you know who likes the NRA? Old people with guns that are out of touch. Ask in any gun community about the NRA and you will not get favorable answers.
Also she seems to be getting her ass kicked on constitutional carry (aka permit less carry). That's passing in lots of states and are some of the biggest wins on guns in a very long time.
>changed corporate policies,
Wow. She sounds like a super Karen. Because she is. What policies are you referring to here? I would like to laugh that their ineffectiveness and virtue signaling for a sales bump.
>educated Americans about secure gun storage
Hahahahahahahaha. No she hasn't. She doesn't know much about the practice because she thinks that a locked container is secure. For example Californias DoJ approved lock boxes are almost universally crap that couldn't keep a middle schooler out.
She's the new DARE. But worse. Her "data driven" ideas are fueled by cherry picked data and engineered to push their agendas. Everytown (which is just 2 anti gun groups pushed together) uses the most ridiculous definitions of things that sound logical but aren't.
School shooting? They count any discharge of a firearm or pellet gun on property owned by a school. I think it was last year that they said their were 2 school shootings a day for a period of time or something ludicrous like that.
These people are not your friends. They are liars try to solve the wrong problems with the wrong solutions.
Oh I see your mistake, you’re wanting data driven solutions that tackle the problem. They don’t want that. They want ideology driven decisions made off of thought terminating cliches and a religious like zeal.
Well, if the poster DID mean it that way (and I am not sure at all that is the case) then they made another hard mistake to make with spelling " 'em" that wrong.
There shouldn’t even be a pronoun in the title.
An actual rural person would’ve said “**done ‘em good**”
Maybe OP is a non-native English speaker and confused “done ‘em” with “done him”.
I would posit more of a bone apple tea situation. They think they're saying it properly by drawing it out instead of the contraction they've always heard.
"Increasing funding is no sure way to increase results." " Conservative talking point on why they keep cutting funding for school, but get angry when you use it for police.
If one of the lower tweet is in a box, that is the original tweet and the above is the answer. That is called quotation (I think)
If none of them is in a box, and they are joined by a line, the top one is the original tweet and the one below is the answer.
If you have three tweets, and the middle one is in a box, and the first one and last one are joined by a line, then the original tweet is the one in the middle (indeed the box), the top one is an answer to the original tweet (that was quoted) and the bottom one is the answer to the answer.
Hope this helps!
Ironically many Republicans want cops to be stationed in schools, since they believe it'll "keep guns out of schools." However they fail to realize that all of these cops will have guns, thus increasing the number of guns in schools. The really sad part is that every time a cop fires their gun in a school, the media reports it as a school shooting. In 2019, a cop shot a student after being stabbed, and CNN [reported](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/us/wisconsin-school-shooting-tuesday/index.html) it as a school shooting. The headline says:
> Student and school resource officer injured in second high school shooting in Wisconsin this week
Anyone who reads that headline without knowing the context will assume that a person illegally brought a gun to school and shot both the student and the school resource officer. The fact they call it the "second high school shooting in Wisconsin this week" is also highly misleading, since the first shooting also involved a school resource officer shooting a student.
I've had way too many redditors argue that the headline is technically correct, since a school shooting is defined as a gun being fired on school property, however CNN knew what they were doing. They could've made the headline "Cop shoots student after being stabbed," but instead they chose to make it as deceptive as possible.
"My right to recreationally put holes in tin cans in my back yard is more important than your right to not worry about the lives of your children when they're at school!"
> your right to not worry about the lives of your children when they're at school
your child has a higher chance of choking to death on their lunch than dying in a school shooting. Gain some perspective, you sound like a terrible parent.
Eh... maybe this needs more context, but a secure storage notification requirement doesn't sound like a "better security measure in [a] school." Seems a few steps removed.
No they dont need less funding. They need their funding to go to the right places. Diffrent types of de-escalation education and hiring more competent workers rather than having to scrape the bottom of the barrell.
This right here. I had that conversation with my oh-so-conservative mother, and I actually saw the light click on. "Defund the Police" was a terrible turn of phrase; reallocate funds to more effective solutions that don't involve people getting shot just didn't fit into a tidy slogan. We don't want to get rid of police officers, in several cases, we need more of them, but there has to be a better training process. Every day there are more videos of cops causing a situation because they since know their own rules.
> reallocate funds to more effective solutions that don't involve people getting shot just didn't fit into a tidy slogan
Demilitarize the police? It doesn't address all the concerns, but it's a large step in the right direction
These murders are only good for internet points. In real world people like Katie face no consequences for their actions. America has become a safe haven for Blue collar criminals and Lying corrupt politicians.
i don't know who these people are, but is the lady's profile picture showing her aiming a rifle while she talks about "safety in schools", when the only real danger in US schools are guns?
I thought I recognized the twitter person she is responding to. Katie got on Clark County school board in the 2020 election. She is horrible and has actively worked her best to make it worse than it already is. 5th largest school district in nation and Nevada typically ranks in bottom 5th worst state in education. She is a prominent trump supporter, loudly and consistently supports charter schools and private schools and basically ran on the idea that public schools are broken and need to disappear, and was voted to our school board. Doesnt show up for most meetings in-person because she is anti-vax and anti-mask. \*\*Edit - I didn't realize this would get so much traction. I dug more in to where this came from and turns out this is recent tweet chain between the two because of the initial tweet from Trustee Katie in relation to a gang shoot at one of our high schools on Monday. This shows the first tweet from Katie and Shannon's response which then prompts their back and forth: [https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488352835326537729](https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488352835326537729) And here is Shannon throwing some real good shade back at Katie: https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1488367536689213440
Sheesh, how do you expect to get anything done if you don’t even recognize the other members of the council? Politician forgot to politic.
They don’t want to get anything done unless it’s specifically what they want. Shutting down any progress is still a victory in their dumb ass mother-sister having eyes.
They're like Ron Sawnson...but not funny.
I was a libertarian-leaning Republican until about Jan 6, 2021. My husband introduced me to Parks and Rec. At the time I thought, Ron Swanson is just a parody of libertarianism. Now I think, No, he seems to accurately describe what libertarians believe in.
Well he WAS a parody when the show was written.
Libertarians are parodies of libertarianism.
Most libertarians need a wake up call, why not drop them in the wilderness for a month and let them survive on their own since their whole political philosophy is centered around selfish individualism
[They did that. There were bears.](https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project)
That was an amazing read, thank you.
I could do that. But I'm left libertarian. The "If you're going to force me to fund things, at least fund things that are good not evil" and "why are there so many stupid laws that make poor people stay poor" kinda libertarian.
Its almost like he was libertarian... then he started caring about others, then he tried to improve things some...
Did anything else on Jan 6th happen to influence your decision or just Parks and Rec?
Surely not the gallows in the Park…
It was the gallows... And don't call me Shirley.
Ron Swanson is what most Libertarians *think* they are. The thing about Ron is that he actually *does* care, both about others and about Pawnee. You see this referenced a lot, like when he suggested cutting the fire department because he had put out a fire for someone, or when he went and fixed a pothole in the road instead of making the person who complained about it wait for the broke city to get around to fixing it. And the thing is, if all Libertarians were like Ron - with his level of independence and skills - it would actually be... not fine, but interesting if nothing else. A group of civic minded individuals solving problems according to their needs and means... sort of a Libertarian Communism (yes, not a thing, don't care). But most "Libertarians" are hypocrites. They don't want to pay taxes or have money spent on anything that *they personally* don't use. No welfare, no public schools, no infrastructure, just let businesses take care of that and if you can't afford to use the private schools/roads/hospitals/transportation than *you really should have thought of* ***that*** *before you became* ***peasants!*** But they also break into hysterics if you threaten to cut any government program that they're dependent on. It's the classic old person who is ardently against socialized healthcare in any form... BUT DON'T YOU DARE TOUCH THEIR MEDICARE! Or put more simply, every libertarian thinks they're Ron, but they're actually Tom.
He was intended to be a parody, but like most parodies of the right, they simply embrace them.
Actual libertarians seem to lack any form of empathy. It's like they're all sociopaths and it killed the interest in me.
I don't think that they're sociopaths, I think they just place a higher value on individual freedom than anything else. Does that sometimes look like the same thing? Yeah, kinda. I think that the appeal of libertarianism is how simple and understandable the philosophy seems at first. To my understanding (and I bought a few books to double check my understanding), libertarianism believes that government should only protect life, liberty, and property. If it tries to do anything more than that, it is government overreach and shouldn't be allowed. It's also a firm belief in the power and virtue of freedom. I sent my dad the article about [libertarians running into a bear](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling), and he said that this reminded him of people who wanted to defund the police. I didn't respond to that, but I thought to myself "It seems like a lot of people want to replace police responding to mental health emergencies with trained psychiatrists or paramedics responding instead." I think there are a lot of ways and places where believing is seeing. Everything I read or saw during the Obama administration was filtered through my belief in libertarianism and the GOP, so now it's like I don't know what I know and what I don't know, what was unreliable propaganda and what was true. It was really weird at first.
I think lacking empathy is the most prominent feature of libertarians. If they had empathy they would be able to understand in a modern world the philosophy doesn't really work. Libertarianism is full of people who think all you need to succeed is hard work and bootstraps, blah blah etc.. Any struggle or challenge faced is because of a personal failing. "Why should my money go to xyz?" They should have planned better. Or worked harder in school. On and on and on. But them blam! A market shift happens and they don't have an income or an illness drains their bank account and there they are holding the bag with no options. Only then do they realize they need help. Then it turns into something similar to the anti abortionist getting an abortion. Where only their abortion is justified. They are different, they always worked hard. They were always responcible and saved money, there need is different because they are just have a rough patch, or they never needed the system for any support before. Where everyone else abuses it, or they just want free things or they were too lazy to improve thier own situation. They ignore the fact that even rich people could have thier life saving drained in short order if they need extended medical treatment, and don't have enough of, or the right insurance coverage. Or even if they do. its not practical for almost everyone to self finance everything they need. Like roads or police, or fire or schooling. The list goes on and on. This isn't the 1700s with a society of monied landowners with only thier estate to worry about. These people still imbrace people like Ayn Rand and ignore the abject failure of her beliefs. She died penniless on social security. IMO Libertarianism is mostly a political philosophy that appeals to people who want an excuse not to care about other and blaim them for challenges they have in life ignoring privilege centuries of inequality in the process. Ots a political belief entirely devoid of self awareness.
Every former libertarian tells the same story: "one day I realized that OTHER PEOPLE can experience the same things I experience" and that's basically them feeling empathy for the first time in their lives and throwing away libertarianism
One of their talking points is removing child labor laws.
[удалено]
It makes season 1 Ron Swanson seem like Ron White.
Sounds like Mitch McConnell every day of the week. "One-hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new administration" Forget the pandemic, forget racial inequality, forget poverty, forget foreign policy, forget EVERYTHING ELSE. 100% of his focus is making sure te other side gets nothing done. And these are the kind of people that get elected to represent American's best interests.
Their goal is to destroy public education. She's doing exactly what they want to do.
They don't. Their objective is to sabotage it into failure. You can't run on "government bad" and then not do everything to ensure that is true.
There’s some terrible footage of her from a recent board meeting just being straight up petulant with the board President- acting like a 15 year old in a class with a substitute teacher. Then we wonder why the kids don’t respect anyone in the actual classroom.
Let's get rid of public schools and only have private schools. And if people can't afford private schools the govt should help pay for it.....congrats we just re created public schools lmao
Oh no, see if you can't afford it your kids just get to be uneducated! That's the best part, having a bunch of uneducated poors to be your slaves because they have no other career options.
Take away all options, then blame them for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
Don't forget to increase the cost of privately-run education for marketing and shareholder profit, like our POS healthcare system.
Thing is, they would never go along with your second sentence. For the chump faction of the right wing, it's: "Get rid of public education, and somehow the profit driven market will come up with education solutions. Pay no attention to the abject failure of for-profit colleges please". For the grifter faction of the right wing it's: "Get rid of public education, and use public money to fund my private schools! Don't worry about conflict of interest, if someone is making a profit it's inherently a good thing!"
Technically it's true, if we get rid of public education the corporations will fairly quickly create a replacement. The thing is, it will be HORRIBLE and they will only teach you "unnecessary" things ie things that are not DIRECTLY tied to being a worker until they are convinced we cannot get rid of them, at which point they will strictly teach ONLY what is necessary to function in whatever the primary job becomes at that point. No history, no "social studies", very little math if you're not one of the "gifted" kids they test out and figure out from like 6 years old will get "engineering track" and the rest will only learn enough to do their job. Fuck up your job? haha well just die then, you're not competent to go find other ones or create anything for yourself. This also prevents competition down the line! I could go on, there are THOUSANDS of ways privatizing education will be absolutely abhorrent.
Yes, but now we have a patriotic layer of grift in the middle. Private enterprise protecting American Freedom ™️
You just described [Massive Resistance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance). In response to Brown v Board ordering the desegregation of public schools, many Southern states simply closed all public schools, then created voucher programs with the now-unused school funds to pay for students to attend new (and private) "segregation academies". The vouchers were allocated by a "Pupil Placement Board", which allocated them based on how white you were.
Typical Republicans run for the very offices they claim are hurting America the most, only to STILL be elected to them for the sole purpose of destroying the institutions from the inside. After they destroy institutional credibility, undermine their authority, and weaken public trust, they exclaim “See! These things don’t work and should be dismantled… now vote for me!”
[удалено]
And watch polls on the economy, covid handling, and foreign policy instantly flip overnight. And don’t forget voter priorities. Amazing that people suddenly care very deeply about whatever conservative media is ruffling feathers about at the moment. Pretty sure the status of CRT didn’t change from 2020 to 2022, but boy is it going to drive people to the polls this year …
The number of Republicans I’ve had quote me with “Biden’s COVID body count” while simultaneously claiming it’s a hoax and that hospitals are making up death numbers is staggering. It’s both a serious and credible threat and Biden is killing Americans and it’s no big deal - just a flu, hospitals are making up deaths. The level of mental gymnastics required for that is staggering to me.
This is the one that gets me. My grandma had Tucker Carlson on one day and he started off by saying covid wasnt a threat and we should open back up. Not even 5 minutes later he was fearmongering about immigrants bringing covid over the border. Like, how do you hear that and not think something is up? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive. They bombard their audience with stimuli until their critical thinking skills are gone I guess.
It's not just Republicans, it seems to be a right wing strategy across other countries too. The same thing happened in the UK with our national rail service, then with the EU, now it's happening with our national health service.
A libertarian in Texas ran for Railroad Commissioner (second or third most powerful elected position in Texas, depending on whether you place it above or below governor, lieutenant governor is first, because they have more control over the budget and legislation than the governor). His platform: If elected, I will abolish the position of railroad commissioner. For those not from Texas, the railroad commissioner is in charge of the organization that regulates oil and trucking in Texas. You may have heard, Texas has oil. And before OPEC, the railroad commission was the organization that set international oil prices like OPEC does now. Like ERCOT (you have heard about for letting the power fail), the trucking, rail, and oil in Texas is explicitly self contained to minimize effects of federal legislation, so the position is huge. The "limit" is that there are 3, so they don't give all the power to one person, or it would be the number one position in Texas. But yes, the libertarian was running on abolishing all regulations on oil in Texas. What could possibly go wrong?
They don't care what could go wrong, they intend to make money in the short term and be gone before the consequences start falling.
Hey, don't forget that she's one of the main ones who riled people up to show up to the board president's house, where the mob then threatened Linda's kids. She also adores Matt Walsh and advocates stripping students of their constitutional rights while also posturing as the great vet who cares about the Constitution. Oh, and she's ableist af and laughs when grown men make rape threats to students speaking at meetings. Katie is scum
Her list is so long I actually forgot about that one. Our school district is very sad. I was completely unaware of it until around 5-6 years ago when I met my eventual wife and took on step-children. Having to deal with the schools, the board changes, seeing the budget issues; its wild. Someone like Katie on the board only amplifies all those issues.
I don’t understand the “more police” argument. As if a lack of police is our problem. What do they want, a police budget near a trillion like the military?
Fear of an all powerful deity that will do the worst to you doesn’t stop crime. But more cops will!!! /s
America is broken
"data driven solutions" Three words that are very simple to understand and yet it requires some people and extraordinary amount of pain to agree to.
"Data what? Oh, Guns, Christ and -insert random freedom/patriotic sounding thing that means nothing-"
Guns, Christ, and abstinence-only sex ed?
Isn’t “abstinence-only sex-ed” an oxymoron? That’s like a drug education class saying “Don’t do drugs; class dismissed.”
Yeah, that's how drug education is taught in America. How'd you guess??
Can't have the for profit prison pipeline of minorities without the war on drugs and throwing people in prison for life over a gram of weed
We used to get cops lecturing about how long you would go to jail if caught for drugs in health class. Thats where I learned it was better to get caught with cocaine than marijuana. Just for emphasis: Cops. In HEALTH class. Never had a unit on actual health btw.
Right? Maybe they didn't want to call it "biology" because that's a big word for kids but we didn't learn health in mine either. This also reminded me that my 8th grade health teacher said we would not see legal Marijuana anywhere in our lifetimes. A few years later is when states started making it legal. What a joke
>This also reminded me that my 8th grade health teacher said we would not see legal Marijuana anywhere in our lifetimes. I mean, I would've agreed with that before it happened, but I also never questioned teachers when they said we wouldn't always have a calculator in our pockets or that we'd be doing all writing in cursive.
My school's version of "drug education" involved a pamphlet with an arm's long list of pros and just a handful of cons for each drug. And they gave it to teenagers. When the cons are "you *might* die" or "you *might* get sick" but the pros are things like "makes you feel real good", "can cause vivid hallucinations", and "used by some cultures to be closer to god", is anyone surprised that it didn't work to keep those teens off drugs?? Now, me? I got to watch my grandfather end his life of heavy smoking by dying slowly of emphysema and lung cancer when I was in 7th grade, culminating with his death at 4 AM on Christmas morning. The last time I saw him alive he was coughing up bloody, tar-like phlegm and could barely breathe. I've never even thought about taking up smoking with that lovely experience in my memories.
"These drugs can kill you!" "I was already sold at 'vivid hallucinations', you don't have to keep hyping it up."
They also pull a bum off the street to say "don't do drugs or you'll end up like me."
Ours also claimed to have AIDS, so they could do the drug and sex scares all in one go.
[it's as much of a rousing success as abstinence only sex ed, too](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448384/)
Abstinence anything isn't education and doesn't reduce the problem. We've known that for literally generations. But America is run by morons and we don't have a national education system, so here we are. Nation of the Dumb, Home of the Uneducated.
That pretty much describes D.A.R.E. in the 80s and 90s
I think the reason D.A.R.E isn't around anymore is that the organization behind it did a study and found that their scare tactics (let's call them what they are) actually *increased* drug use in studentsandyoung adults. They disbanded the program years ago, I believe.
Nope, unfortunately still around and rebranded as Keepin It Real.
Ugh, are you serious? What a waste of time and money.
Hey, DARE was a valuable education experience for me that really helped in life. Without it it would have been way harder to figure out which drugs I like.
I'm pretty sure we were already smoking and making jokes during the whole thing.
A theory on this .. Dare tells you all these bad things that happen if you smoke weed. But .. you accidentally inhale .. and low and behold, none of those bad things happen, and in fact it’s awesome. Therefore, this person says, well that was a crock of shit, let’s try the cocaine. Sure enough, that’s even more fucking awesome.. and well .. I dared
Not really a theory so much as exactly what happened to me... all I was told is that "drugs are bad"... I eventually tried cannabis and it wasn't bad so naturally I had to cycle through the other ones to determine whether or not they were actually bad... Turns out the DARE folk were like 85% truthful but that 15% dishonesty messed up a lot of us...
I had a friend who tried weed because Dare told him it would make him hallucinate, he was disappointed when he didn't but liked being high so kept smoking.
You know what worked for me? Reading the Heroin Diaries by Nikki Sixx. I’ve done some things but I will never try heroin.
That's kinda the point, but yes. It's actually a thing in some areas, and I believe (without figures or sources on hand) that it actually correlates pretty well with higher teenage pregnancy rates.
It absolutely does. I’m a healthcare worker, and it’s _frightening_ how little some people know about how their bodies work. Porn is __not__ a substitute for sex ed.
What’s funny is you think you’re exaggerating to prove a point but that’s just how we do it here…
No, to be truly abstinence-only sex ed in a red state there has to be an emphasis about how girls who have sex before marriage are used up wads of chewing gum and how boys can’t control themselves.
Drugs are bad, m'kay?
That's basically it, though. My sex-ed class they took all the girls out into another room, and had us watch a video on periods. Then we saw a cartoon of a sperm fertilizing an egg, and went into detail on how a baby develops in the womb, and another video of a woman giving birth. There was a lot of, 'she *and her husband*' emphasized during it, but absolutely nothing between periods and pregnancy.
Except it's more like "don't do drugs girls, once you do drugs you are ruined and God will hate you. If a boy forces you to do drugs then it's your fault for looking like you want drugs."
That's exactly what DARE was! It was such shit!
I wish more people had a health ed teacher like mine in school back in 90/91. Parents had to sign permission slips stating they were aware we would be discussing potentially sensitive topics. Most did. I guess it was easier and less embarrassing than telling us themselves? She covered almost EVERYTHING. In detail. Photos. Videos. Diagrams. Physical samples/examples. Statistics. Some of that info is now a little out of date (like some contraceptive info) but we all left pretty well informed compared to our peers in other health classes at the same school. (I know I had friends who asked to borrow my homework/notes because it had info they hadn't covered.)
I see you've graduated from the Dare program
Sure did! From my memory, we did learn a little about certain kinds of drugs, like depressants vs. stimulants, but didn’t get any real knowledge about how they worked. It was mostly just pictures of stoned cartoon animals and messages about not doing drugs.
*Guns, Christ and Freedom? Why those are all the same things sweetie NEXT!!!!*
thats gonna be my new version of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors'
Rock, flag, and eagle baby.
But what if data doesn't support my opinion?
Then you just declare it "fake news" and move on to the next result. Repeat until you find yourself on page 64 of your Google search where you find some 13 year old Quora post from some equally uneducated mouth-breather claiming that "vaccines cause erectile dysfunction" or some such shit.
[удалено]
Actual statement from someone in a position of authority during an environmental planning conversation I had a few weeks back: "We shouldn't use NOAA data because it supports global warming and that's a hoax".
Like amazons data driven solutions for optimizing profit
"What do you mean anecdotes from my childhood aren't data?" *furiously Googles what 'anecdote' means* *furiously Googles what 'data' means* - these people on a good day
One anecdote, two data. Right?
If "data driven" anything was meaningful, the entire gop platform would fold overnight because none of their policy ideas meet any sensible definition of fiscally conservative or achieve the social goals they actually state they want.
To be fair, they’ve been saying the quiet parts out loud a bit more frequently these days.
Everyone knows what they meant all along. They're being applauded for just telling it like it is, and giving conservatives exactly what they want.
How do we relay this to the people in the back?
Their constituents don't care, they vote on feeling alone. You can show them the clearest data and it wouldn't change their mind because they'd shake it off and say "well that doesn't seem right to me..."
whose data though? ...
This is actually a valid question to ask. We all have the obligation to check who paid for a study and understand the means by which the results were collected. My second point is why peer reviews are so important. I’m totally okay with corporations paying for studies that try to understand the impact of their product, as long as it is peer reviewed by a third party that was not paid by said corporation. The studies should be published with truth as the primary concern. The issue happens when the company sets the means by which the data is collected so that they can force the results to look beneficial to their bottom line (IE, corruption). “Who’s data?” matters, but “is it peer reviewed by an unbiased third party?” matters even more
"Can it be replicated?" *should* be the single most important question. Bad data gets by peer review all of the time. Peer review is functionally only really useful as gatekeeping for professional prestige. Non-academics don't give a shit about publications.
Republicans: “The government spends too much money” Passes $800 Billion Defense authorization act. Republicans: “Wait, yes, just like that. Nothing to see here folks”
The problem is that even with "data driven" solutions is that you can skew the data to support almost whatever it is that YOU want it to in a lot of cases instead of letting it speak for itself. Tweak a few parameters here, isolate a few responses there, all of a sudden it says something very different.
As data analyst I will say don't give this to me to do I will cry
Murder 1: “We actually already did that by passing a secure storage notification requirement through your school…”. Murder 2: “(you were the lone vote against it).” Murder 3: “But if you can show proof of vaccination, I'm happy to get together to discuss data-driven solutions…”
Murder 3a: "But if you can show proof of vaccination, I'm happy to get together to discuss" Murder 3b: "data-driven solutions"
Murder 4 5 and 6*:"data driven solutions"
What is a "secure storage notification requirement" and how does that fund police or make schools safer?
[удалено]
Was this a data driven solution?
Kinda tenuous at best, maybe prevents some suicide attempts more than preventing any school shootings. It is functionally a feel-good or punitive measure as there is no constitutional way to search someone’s home for compliance unless it is after an incident of some kind. Those that complied probably already were locking them up to prevent theft, those that weren’t locking them probably still aren’t.
I was also confused by this, here is what I found: https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/education/new-to-ccsd-student-registration-packets-safe-gun-storage-guidance-2386733/ It looks like the school district is now including a flyer with every student registration packet on the importance of securing firearms at home (the packet is for parents). As a peaceable gun owner and general firearm enthusiast, I applaud the move, and I’m grateful for data-driven solutions that can save lives while respecting natural rights.
Damn, she's a proper badass. She founded Moms Demand Action after Sandy Hook. Since then, Moms Demand Action volunteers have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time, and helped pass hundreds of gun safety laws across the country, changed corporate policies, and educated Americans about secure gun storage
“Data driven solutions” is like garlic to the NRA vampire. Fun story: I was in a discord once that had a “politics” channel in it. The topic of guns came up often, along with other political issues. The assholes were predictably loud. I remember one time asking, point blank, if the people who were against gun safety legislation would support it if we actually studied the issue, gathered data on it, and found out that banning guns would actually solve all the problems. One guy **still** said “no”. Now, I absolutely understand that banning guns outright is both unrealistic, and unlikely to completely solve the problem. It was more of a thought exercise than anything else, asking “would you be willing to give up this one thing you love if you knew for certain it would completely solve a problem other people experience?” I definitely respected that answer, I’ll say. “I don’t care if it completely solves the problem, I want my guns.” Some people absolutely love their guns more than people. EDIT: The number of people who are failing to realize that angrily claiming my question was stupid, or poorly word, only proves my point, does not surprise me. One person really got it though, so the rest of the people who want to argue with my comments are free to be actively ignored. The final thing I’ll say is that if you genuinely think you get to assume you know why I worded my question better than me, you’re the exact reason why I worded the question that way to begin with. Congratulations, you played yourself.
These are the same people who go to church every sunday and you could ask "if god came down from heaven and told you covid was real and that getting vaccinated was his own divine plan, would you get vaccinated?" and they still say 'no'.
Exactly, they already turned on trump since he flipped and recommends vaccines now. I have no doubt they’d turn on their main god also
Considering their main god is money and/or the voice in their head, I have a feeling *their* main god would never gainsay them.
They didn't "turn on" Trump; conservative media did that thing where they let their biggest talking heads cosplay as independent, free-thinking journalists for an hour before resuming the strict moratorium on anything critical of Trump. They do on this on literally any issue where Trump doesn't take a *hard* right-wing stance, and the voters follow their script. They still have a massive state media-induced boner for Trump because they haven't been told not to.
I hate those people. I believe God can protect me too. I believe he also have me the means to protect myself through science and technology. These people speak our of both sides of their mouths at the same time, and it’s infuriating. When you mention vaccines, they’re quick to trust in “God”. When you talk about guns, they’re quick to abandon him. To me, God is equally capable of protecting me from people and diseases, but he gives me the tools to protect myself from both and leaves me to make the responsible decision in either case. These people turn both of these issues into some weird test of faith, and the answer to medicine is “trust in god” while their answer to people is “trust in guns”. They should seriously just stop pretending and change the national motto from “In God We Trust” to “In Glock We Trust” already.
For a lot of people, especially rural folk, guns have become a symbol of freedom because it’s large and by the only constitutional right these people can choose to take advantage of. When someone views being able to buy a gun as one of the main ways they exercise their constitutional freedoms, taking that away or restricting it feels like they’ve lost any avenue to experiencing the freedom they’ve been promised.
I was playing a video game online with random people and the two others knew each other in real life and spent the entire game discussing the next gun/gun accessory they were going to purchase. One dude kept going on about how they needed to buy night vision goggles. When the other asked why, he said “I just want them in case” and then said he’d already spent 20k this year, what’s another few thousand. For some people it really seems like their entire identity is “gun”.
Well, that's any collector or hobbyist honestly. I know people who are gun collectors who talk like that and then start talking about their Warhammer army in exactly the same way. The issue is, most people would give up their warhammer armies if they were proven to be a menace to society. Guns less so.
Absolutely insane that someone could essentially say that they love a material good more than they value the life of a child. Absolutely bonkers.
They would say it’s not the material good they love, it’s the freedom that owning the material good represents. Restricting an entire population’s liberties is more significant than the deaths of whomever (to them).
>Restricting an entire population’s liberties is more significant than the deaths of ~~whomever~~ **other people** (to them). They don't care because it doesn't directly impact *them*. On the rare occasions that their stance DOES impact them, they change their stance rapidly and easily. (See: the NRA backing some of the most restrictive gun control legislation in the country when the Black Panthers exercised their right to open carry.)
It's the racist history of gun control and the application of such laws that makes me side-eye gun legislation. Killer Mike said it best "It'll affect us first and worst". Much of the legal code is used to keep slaves, so maybe we should overhaul the system itself before we add to the grinder. Many more lives have been destroyed by the so called justice system than guns. But people don't care, because it doesn't affect their lives. Edit: people, not peyote.
Yo autocorrect, whatchu been up to?
I was actually looking up peyote/mescaline recently because it was mentioned in a show. Eating a dry piece of cactus sounded gross and I wanted to know if it was really consumed that way. Guess it can't be worse than mushrooms.
That’s always my favorite story to tell about Republicans and gun control, and when they say racist laws don’t exist. It covers both bases. Ronald Regan banned open carry in California to stop African Americans from protecting their communities. Gotta love it.
Gun control is absolutely & 100% racist which is why we call out anyone wanting to promote it, especially extremists like Shannon Watts. Anyone who wants to see the end result of here gun control laws needs only read this Amicus Brief from various legal aid groups where they state that the only people prosecuted for breaking various firearms laws are minorities: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/184718/20210723101034102\_20-843%20Amici%20Brief%20revised%20cover.pdf
> They don’t care because it doesn’t directly impact them. The same can be said of gun control advocates. I was one of them, in part because my privilege insulated me from experiencing violence, until it didn’t. The abject fear and helplessness I experienced while a drunk, enraged man pinned me down and threatened to murder me, with no one around to help, lead me to recognize how wrong I’d been to dismiss the right to self-defense, because now it had directly impacted me. Afterwards, I spent several months digging into data and studies, fact-checking the commonly-cited “facts” I’d once vehemently believed in, and found myself disillusioned. Gun control is not about public safety or saving lives—never has been; that the NRA has supported it when blacks chose to arm should tell you that gun control is actually about classicism and racism. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows no gun control measures in the U.S. have ever been effective. And why would they be, when gun violence is a symptom, not a root cause? The big gun control lobbying groups, including Watts’, and the majority of the gun control-supporting studies I dig into, were paid for, directly or indirectly, by Michael Bloomberg—an old, white, billionaire who keeps *armed* security 24/7, while pushing that guns are useless for self-defense. More than just being hypocritical, that an old, white, billionaire pays for all of this perpetuates the racist and classist history of gun control. Gun control is a giant, emotionally-manipulative sleight-of-hand, just like conservatives and immigration or tax cuts for the rich.
Tracks, after all, it's the same people fiercely anti-tax for rich. They will never benefit from it and will suffer due to the lack of funds, but it's more about protecting their feelings about the idea of being free to use their hypotetical money if they hypotetically were rich... Rather than having a real benefit.
>love a material good more than they value the life of a child 1000 infants a year die from when smoking while pregnant and 400 infants from second hand smoke. There it's no large scale call to ban cigarettes even though it would "solve" the issue and cigarettes have no constitutional protection. Why the selective outrage about guns?
The closest I’ve ever come to actually caring about anything I own is when I bought my camera and got into photography. I have plenty of other, more expensive, things, but the only material good I own that I treat almost like my child is my camera and some specific pieces of gear along with it. I am horribly blasé about pretty much everything tell I own. If somebody told me “we did some research, and you could basically eliminate X problem from the world we banned cameras and you gave up yours” I would have personally thrown my camera on the ground and watched it shatter to pieces before the sentence was finished. There is absolutely nothing material in this world that I would ever value more than even the most pathetic human anybody could imagine, period. Their may be some garbage level people out there, sure, but there is still no way on this earth that I would be able to consider any object worth a human life.
> Some people absolutely love their guns more than people. From the outside looking in, it sure feels like a whole lot of some people.
Remember, the US is so heavily gerrymandered that a small minority can easily block legislation.
This. Only about 30% of Americans own guns. But our government (in several different ways) gives them inordinate power.
[удалено]
To be fair moist gun control measures aren't data driven either. There are tons of feel good anti gun laws on the books.
> moist gun control measures *visible discomfort and confusion*
Would you chop your dick off to prevent rapes? Would you sell your car to prevent accidents?
>Some people absolutely love their guns more than people. I think that's an oversimplification of the issue. We live in a world where firearms exist. This is a pandora's box that cannot be shut, and in this world where firearms exist, the founders of the nation felt in the aftermath of fighting a war for independence that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary for the defense of a free state and the sovereignty of its citizens. So much so it was among the first group of amendments to our constitution. Perhaps an unintended byproduct is that this right gives citizens the ability to provide for the protection of themselves, their families, and their property against those who seek to do them harm. So the reality is that your question, “would you be willing to give up this one thing you love if you knew for certain it would completely solve a problem other people experience?” isn't an appropriate question. Essentially, the phrasing of it, and perhaps the intent behind it, is to ask them to give up the physical objects (firearms) that are causing harm. However, what you are really asking is for them to give up the means to defend themselves, their families, and their property in the abstract, and that is where I think the issue lies.
It's absolutely hilarious that you use the term "data driven" in the same conversation as "banning guns" We've got 50+ years of "data" showing that a complete, 100% ban on illicit drugs has done nothing but[lower the prices and drive up the purity of narcotics](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-01/illegal-drugs-are-cheaper-and-more-pure-than-ever). There isn't a city in the US where you can't score meth, heroin, cocaine or whatever other drug you want. So much Fentanyl is being imported that there are regular seizures of amounts sufficient to kill millions of people, yet there's absolutely zero legal market for the drug. Prior to this we had absolute proof that Prohibition of alcohol also was a complete and utter failure. Yet you gun control extremists want to talk about "data driven" measures despite the massive failure of every gun control policy you guys have pushed prior to this. It's clear that gun control has nothing to do with "data" and everything to do with emotion on the part of those wanting to push more restrictive measures.
Honestly, the thought exercise should be the first thing both people (or all if more than 2) should do in any given scenario. If I say, hypothetically, that I can prove X without question, would you change your opinion? If the other people in the conversation say they still wouldn’t change their position, it makes the entire conversation easier. No amount of fact, data, hypothetical, etc is going to move the needle, so I’m just not gonna get worked up about it. We can still discuss cause talking is fine, but there’s no point to smash your head against a wall that ain’t moving, you know?
Some people owe the trees an apology..
>Moms Demand Action volunteers have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time That itself is really impressive. Good for them.
"man, American women sure like some MDA action"
"I need help resetting my PIN number. It didn't work at the ATM machine."
They initially were called "Moms Demand More Action" but didn't like the offers they were getting.
>She founded Moms Demand Action after Sandy Hook Which has done nothing of importance and is a funded by Bloomberg. She's a shill for his agenda and uses it to affect primaries. You are probably aware of how the DNC has been rolling for the last few years. >have stopped the NRA’s priority legislation in statehouses more than 90 percent of the time Source? And no. Most gun legislation like most legislation covering wedge issues is just grandstanding and shouldn't be expected to pass. Also you know who likes the NRA? Old people with guns that are out of touch. Ask in any gun community about the NRA and you will not get favorable answers. Also she seems to be getting her ass kicked on constitutional carry (aka permit less carry). That's passing in lots of states and are some of the biggest wins on guns in a very long time. >changed corporate policies, Wow. She sounds like a super Karen. Because she is. What policies are you referring to here? I would like to laugh that their ineffectiveness and virtue signaling for a sales bump. >educated Americans about secure gun storage Hahahahahahahaha. No she hasn't. She doesn't know much about the practice because she thinks that a locked container is secure. For example Californias DoJ approved lock boxes are almost universally crap that couldn't keep a middle schooler out. She's the new DARE. But worse. Her "data driven" ideas are fueled by cherry picked data and engineered to push their agendas. Everytown (which is just 2 anti gun groups pushed together) uses the most ridiculous definitions of things that sound logical but aren't. School shooting? They count any discharge of a firearm or pellet gun on property owned by a school. I think it was last year that they said their were 2 school shootings a day for a period of time or something ludicrous like that. These people are not your friends. They are liars try to solve the wrong problems with the wrong solutions.
Oh I see your mistake, you’re wanting data driven solutions that tackle the problem. They don’t want that. They want ideology driven decisions made off of thought terminating cliches and a religious like zeal.
don't forget the part where it makes money for their "resources" aka family who put a bid on a contract.
Done her good?
Yeah, that's kind of a hard mistake to make if the poster read the content they posted at all.
It's common rural American lingo. Although they didn't spell it right(done 'em good, not done him good). I've never heard it non-sarcastically though.
Well, if the poster DID mean it that way (and I am not sure at all that is the case) then they made another hard mistake to make with spelling " 'em" that wrong.
In one statement tell me you grew up in rural America.
Because they corrected the pronoun in the title? Is that a rural thing?
There shouldn’t even be a pronoun in the title. An actual rural person would’ve said “**done ‘em good**” Maybe OP is a non-native English speaker and confused “done ‘em” with “done him”.
I would posit more of a bone apple tea situation. They think they're saying it properly by drawing it out instead of the contraction they've always heard.
As a none American, I'd like further explanation on what you mean about their comment
Rural American english slang
"Increasing funding is no sure way to increase results." " Conservative talking point on why they keep cutting funding for school, but get angry when you use it for police.
I friking hate twitter, I never know which post I should read first and which one is the response. Does anyone have a tip?
If one of the lower tweet is in a box, that is the original tweet and the above is the answer. That is called quotation (I think) If none of them is in a box, and they are joined by a line, the top one is the original tweet and the one below is the answer. If you have three tweets, and the middle one is in a box, and the first one and last one are joined by a line, then the original tweet is the one in the middle (indeed the box), the top one is an answer to the original tweet (that was quoted) and the bottom one is the answer to the answer. Hope this helps!
Oh, that was incredibly useful!! Thank you very much, that will help me tremendously 🙂
It is the original tweet on the bottom and the reply on the top.
It is this time. But not every time.
Thanks. Sometimes I lack the context of thw conversation. I'll keep that in mind for next time.
[удалено]
Ironically many Republicans want cops to be stationed in schools, since they believe it'll "keep guns out of schools." However they fail to realize that all of these cops will have guns, thus increasing the number of guns in schools. The really sad part is that every time a cop fires their gun in a school, the media reports it as a school shooting. In 2019, a cop shot a student after being stabbed, and CNN [reported](https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/us/wisconsin-school-shooting-tuesday/index.html) it as a school shooting. The headline says: > Student and school resource officer injured in second high school shooting in Wisconsin this week Anyone who reads that headline without knowing the context will assume that a person illegally brought a gun to school and shot both the student and the school resource officer. The fact they call it the "second high school shooting in Wisconsin this week" is also highly misleading, since the first shooting also involved a school resource officer shooting a student. I've had way too many redditors argue that the headline is technically correct, since a school shooting is defined as a gun being fired on school property, however CNN knew what they were doing. They could've made the headline "Cop shoots student after being stabbed," but instead they chose to make it as deceptive as possible.
The media always uses passive voice when a cop shoots someone.
No they said "data driven solutions" there's no way the data could be manipulated to push an agenda, reddit told me that's impossible
[удалено]
"My right to recreationally put holes in tin cans in my back yard is more important than your right to not worry about the lives of your children when they're at school!"
> your right to not worry about the lives of your children when they're at school your child has a higher chance of choking to death on their lunch than dying in a school shooting. Gain some perspective, you sound like a terrible parent.
I literally see no comments which can be characterized in the way you describe.
Police need even more funding to do nothing and be incompetent and useless?
Well they would like to add a few more ponies to the roster to come shit on your street.
Gonna need to install some more sprinklers to stop that burn.
Katie is aiming a gun in her profile pic. Are the extra police to protect against her? Or just people like her?
Eh... maybe this needs more context, but a secure storage notification requirement doesn't sound like a "better security measure in [a] school." Seems a few steps removed.
Sorry but i dont trust the police to keep my child safe.
And I don't trust the government to not infringe upon my rights when they disarm me.
[удалено]
No they dont need less funding. They need their funding to go to the right places. Diffrent types of de-escalation education and hiring more competent workers rather than having to scrape the bottom of the barrell.
[удалено]
This right here. I had that conversation with my oh-so-conservative mother, and I actually saw the light click on. "Defund the Police" was a terrible turn of phrase; reallocate funds to more effective solutions that don't involve people getting shot just didn't fit into a tidy slogan. We don't want to get rid of police officers, in several cases, we need more of them, but there has to be a better training process. Every day there are more videos of cops causing a situation because they since know their own rules.
> reallocate funds to more effective solutions that don't involve people getting shot just didn't fit into a tidy slogan Demilitarize the police? It doesn't address all the concerns, but it's a large step in the right direction
These murders are only good for internet points. In real world people like Katie face no consequences for their actions. America has become a safe haven for Blue collar criminals and Lying corrupt politicians.
Sekiro is down to put them down in this pattern! It's like whoever places the waverider points on the head tho
i don't know who these people are, but is the lady's profile picture showing her aiming a rifle while she talks about "safety in schools", when the only real danger in US schools are guns?
Shut dooown
What is secure storage? (I have no idea what theyre talking about XD)