Submitted by mamawoman t3_1264vgh in explainlikeimfive
ToxiClay t1_je7tvq3 wrote
Reply to comment by Ground2ChairMissile in ELI5: How is TikTok a national security risk? by mamawoman
No, because you're going to take that and pooh-pooh anything anyone tries to say.
The threat isn't specifically enumerable because the threat space is that large.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7uh4i wrote
Like I said, weasel word.
I already laid out specific threats. And why a video app isn't necessary to exploit them.
But if you're so desperate to believe that Congress is actually accomplishing something, while we drown in medical debt and wait for our next scheduled mass shooting, so be it.
ToxiClay t1_je7utgr wrote
> Like I said, weasel word.
Like I said, no.
>I already laid out specific threats. And why a video app isn't necessary to exploit them.
And what about all the other data China is picking up? Or the money that China is making from TikTok?
>...wait for our next scheduled mass shooting...
Oh, come on. Don't try to pivot to that fucking chestnut.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je7vc5r wrote
Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.
Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?
And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?
ToxiClay t1_je7zql8 wrote
> Lie to yourself all you want. I don't have to indulge your delusion.
Fortunately, I'm not lying, and there's no "delusion" you have to indulge.
>Who is more likely to actually hurt you, the terrible Red Communist menace, or the nutjob who bought a gun with no trouble and decided he needed to rob a 7-11 for his next fix?
Let me guess: your solution lines up roughly with what's coming out of the Democrat thoughtspace.
>And which of these problems is Congress more interested in actually fixing?
The deadlock is because Democrats don't actually want to "solve a problem," and they get pushback on it, as they rightfully should.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80dqz wrote
Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded. For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.
A slaughter that doesn't happen in civilized countries.
New century, same dumbasses.
ToxiClay t1_je80i1j wrote
> Delusional people are often unaware that they're deluded.
People who aren't delusional are also often unaware that they're deluded.
>For example, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to be manipulated by a bunch of jingoist politicians taking straight from the McCarthy playbook, just two days after our latest all-American homegrown slaughter.
Damn, then it's a good thing I'm not being manipulated in such a way, isn't it?
Listen, if you want to talk guns, I'm game, but calling me deluded and stupid isn't a good opener.
Nor is implying that America is somehow "uncivilized" for not doing things like banning "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and whatnot.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80zp2 wrote
You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.
And yet you think they'll protect you from the big, bad, foreign boogeyman.
I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can. How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.
ToxiClay t1_je834ve wrote
> I'm tempted to say something like "you can't possibly be that stupid," but clearly you can.
Again, a terrible opener if you're actually looking to have a discussion.
>How unsurprising it is to find that you're also a gun nut.
I'm not, unless you're really reaching with your definitions. How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?
>You're the one listening to the same politicians who've literally told you they won't solve any problems.
And yet you want them to solve gun violence.
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je83o1d wrote
>if you're looking to have a discussion.
That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person. On that note...
>How do you define "gun nut" for the purpose of casually dismissing people?
Great question, shockingly! A gun nut is someone who values their own guns and/or access to guns above the lives of other people.
I've answered your question. Now you answer mine. How many school shootings has, say, Canada had this week?
Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question. Let's see if you can do better.
ToxiClay t1_je84e03 wrote
> That presumes that I'm talking to a rational person
You are, and because I'm so rational, I'm concluding that you're not actually interested in having a conversation, but instead punching down. This is evidenced by, among other things, your use of "shockingly" in your next sentence -- and your over-broad definition of "gun nut."
By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright. That'd make a lot more people "gun nuts" than are actually warranted.
Now that I've actually had a chance to briefly experience you, I'm not actually sure I want to have a discussion with you if this is the kind of person you are, and how you interact with people.
Can you tell me I'm wrong?
Ground2ChairMissile t1_je84r5m wrote
>By your definition, to not be a "gun nut," one should want guns banned outright.
Point to where I said "in order to not be a gun nut, one should want to ban guns outright."
Bet you can't. It'd be an awfully hypocritical thing to say, since I own guns myself.
>Several gun nuts have outright refused to even consider this question.
The streak continues.
>Can you tell me I'm wrong?
You still haven't answered my last question.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments