Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ground2ChairMissile t1_je80dqz wrote

Reply to comment by ToxiClay in ELI5: How is TikTok a national security risk? by mamawoman

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.

0

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.

0

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.

−1

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.

0

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.

−1

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?

0

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.

1