Gun Lovers Stage Peaceful Protests At State Capitals Nationwide

[Dragon Angel]

While I don't agree with what U.P. Cinnabar did, I have to comment a little about the current state of political discussion in the US. It feels like this is part of an ongoing trend where an appeal to morality is the basic principle of political debate, rather than facts and nuanced discussion.

Such a reaction is not entirely surprising given this context. The polarisation of debate or a lack of one in the first place feels like people can only see their political opponents as nothing but evil people.

And in a sense, I'll argue that even sites have SDN have contributed to this kind of environment. I think we ourselves have become too used to framing political discussion entirely in moralistic terms.

Well, when certain political discussions like marginalized groups' rights, letting corporations wreck the planet and get away with it scot free, and destabilizing the Middle East even further become regular topics for "debate", it kiiiiinda starts tilting a nontrivial proportion of political discussion into also moral discussion...

Sure, not every political discussion should necessarily be a moral discussion. But there are generally good reasons why people often bring morality into politics. This doesn't just come from a vacuum most of the time.

[ray245]

Well, when certain political discussions like marginalized groups' rights, letting corporations wreck the planet and get away with it scot free, and destabilizing the Middle East even further become regular topics for "debate", it kiiiiinda starts tilting a nontrivial proportion of political discussion into also moral discussion...

Sure, not every political discussion should necessarily be a moral discussion. But there are generally good reasons why people often bring morality into politics. This doesn't just come from a vacuum most of the time.

I don't deny that moral arguments are crucial and important. I just think that it's being overemphasised by the left even when it doesn't really help its cause. Sure, you can make a moral argument why guns should be banned, but you won't achieve your goals by demonising every gun-owners in the US...

Being too used to demonising your political opponents can backfire.

[Dragon Angel]

I don't deny that moral arguments are crucial and important. I just think that it's being overemphasised by the left even when it doesn't really help its cause. Sure, you can make a moral argument why guns should be banned, but you won't achieve your goals by demonising every gun-owners in the US...

Being too used to demonising your political opponents can backfire.

Okay but, this argument then is generic enough that it can be applied to anyone, not necessarily just "the Left". I could also argue "gun rights advocates have an extremely legalistic and pedantic view of gun legislation that causes them to lose standing with gun control advocates", but that would be a slap on the faces of gun rights advocates who aren't that way. The same could be said for your analysis, because "the Left" is most certainly not close to being a homogenous block when it comes to gun restrictions.

It's best to avoid these kinds of vague and directionless generalizations because then you get bad takes such as "All Democrats want to ban and take away your guns!!" or "All gun rights advocates are NAZIS!" Simultaneously, "the Left" definitely has no monopoly on unnecessarily demonizing their opponents; just a few minutes of looking at Fox News would show you that.

[ray245]

Okay but, this argument then is generic enough that it can be applied to anyone, not necessarily just "the Left". I could also argue "gun rights advocates have an extremely legalistic and pedantic view of gun legislation that causes them to lose standing with gun control advocates", but that would be a slap on the faces of gun rights advocates who aren't that way. The same could be said for your analysis, because "the Left" is most certainly not close to being a homogenous block when it comes to gun restrictions.

It's best to avoid these kinds of vague and directionless generalizations because then you get bad takes such as "All Democrats want to ban and take away your guns!!" or "All gun rights advocates are NAZIS!" Simultaneously, "the Left" definitely has no monopoly on unnecessarily demonizing their opponents; just a few minutes of looking at Fox News would show you that.

Well, the reason I've brought up the left-wing is mostly that they've been quite successful in making moral arguments and winning rights based on that. Highlighting the immorality of not legalizing homosexual marriage did play a crucial role in changing American attitude in those areas. I mean sure, there's a lot of right-wing supporters that tries to make the moral argument, but they often aren't standing on the moral high ground to begin with.

[Crazedwraith]

I don't think UPC's problem is moral debate in politics. In fact I can't think when morality should be divorced from political discussion.

UPC's problem apears to be a lack of abillity to see shades of grey. Even if you think gun ownership is immoral (i say again if) there's still a lot of difference between that view and being a nazi.

[Eulogy]

Well, the reason I've brought up the left-wing is mostly that they've been quite successful in making moral arguments and winning rights based on that. Highlighting the immorality of not legalizing homosexual marriage did play a crucial role in changing American attitude in those areas. I mean sure, there's a lot of right-wing supporters that tries to make the moral argument, but they often aren't standing on the moral high ground to begin with.

To be fair, the fact that the left is winning those moral arguments a lot of the time doesn't say good things about their opponents. Sometimes you don't have to demonize the other guys; the other guys will unwittingly demonize themselves.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would also argue that the ultimate victory for legalizing homosexual marriage didn't hinge so much on purely moral arguments, anyway. Obviously morality is a central issue in LGBTQ+ rights, and part of the reason attitudes shifted was due to demographic shift as younger generations were in general more (though obviously not immaculately) tolerant. But the ultimate victory seems to me to have hinged far more on practical and legalistic arguments; ultimately, there was just no practical reason not to deny them the right to marriage even if you are morally opposed to the idea, and the Supreme Court decision circled largely around interpretations of existing constitutional law. Obviously moral attitudes and arguments are inseparable from the discussion of LGBTQ+ rights, but to me it seems dangerous and reductive to act like "the left-wing" changed American attitudes solely through moral appeal. Dangerous in the sense that it risks ignoring the fact that there is still a very large proportion of people in America whose attitudes have NOT changed.

[ray245]

Well, the reason I've brought up the left-wing is mostly that they've been quite successful in making moral arguments and winning rights based on that. Highlighting the immorality of not legalizing homosexual marriage did play a crucial role in changing American attitude in those areas. I mean sure, there's a lot of right-wing supporters that tries to make the moral argument, but they often aren't standing on the moral high ground to begin with.

To be fair, the fact that the left is winning those moral arguments a lot of the time doesn't say good things about their opponents. Sometimes you don't have to demonize the other guys; the other guys will unwittingly demonize themselves.

My point is left-wing movements have become used to such an approach. Once you've gotten used to a certain manner of debating, you run the risk of using the same strategy for the wrong debate.

If you for example got used to moral shaming your opponents over most political issues, you're easily inclined to use this for the gun control debate as well.

[K. A. Pital]

My point is left-wing movements have become used to such an approach. Once you've gotten used to a certain manner of debating, you run the risk of using the same strategy for the wrong debate.

If you for example got used to moral shaming your opponents over most political issues, you're easily inclined to use this for the gun control debate as well.

You can make a good moral argument to shame gun rights advocates without saying "thugs", though.

[ray245]

You can make a good moral argument to shame gun rights advocates without saying "thugs", though.

You could, but people are starting to use them as a mean to provoke others. You "win" by riling up your opponents and getting them to lose control. I see it becoming more and more common many discussions and debates.

[Lord Revan]

I would say you can't really use a "good" moral to provoke anyway as the purpose of a good moral argument would be to make the opponents to see your point of view and to question the merits of the things they belive in. You won't go "I dare you not belive in things I don't belive in are you a monster!" but rather you make them shame themselves for beliving in something for the wrong reasons.


In essense you admit that a "good person" might have reason they assume is valid to think the way they do, but then convince them to question that reason, to have ask themselves "is this truly a valid reason to think this way or am I just fooling myself into thinking this way?"

The argument is still based on morality but it's not based on trying to force your own values onto someone else.

[ray245]

I would say you can't really use a "good" moral to provoke anyway as the purpose of a good moral argument would be to make the opponents to see your point of view and to question the merits of the things they belive in. You won't go "I dare you not belive in things I don't belive in are you a monster!" but rather you make them shame themselves for beliving in something for the wrong reasons.

In essense you admit that a "good person" might have reason they assume is valid to think the way they do, but then convince them to question that reason, to have ask themselves "is this truly a valid reason to think this way or am I just fooling myself into thinking this way?"

The argument is still based on morality but it's not based on trying to force your own values onto someone else.

Yes, but that's not what's happening in UPC's posts. UPC is trying to take the moral high ground and basically saying everyone that disagrees with him is immoral people.

[Lord Revan]

I would say you can't really use a "good" moral to provoke anyway as the purpose of a good moral argument would be to make the opponents to see your point of view and to question the merits of the things they belive in. You won't go "I dare you not belive in things I don't belive in are you a monster!" but rather you make them shame themselves for beliving in something for the wrong reasons.

In essense you admit that a "good person" might have reason they assume is valid to think the way they do, but then convince them to question that reason, to have ask themselves "is this truly a valid reason to think this way or am I just fooling myself into thinking this way?"

The argument is still based on morality but it's not based on trying to force your own values onto someone else.

Yes, but that's not what's happening in UPC's posts. UPC is trying to take the moral high ground and basically saying everyone that disagrees with him is immoral people.

You'll get no arguments from me about that. I wanted to point out that it is possible to make morality based argument without condeming your opponents as "demons in human skin", but as you stated that's not what the OP is trying to do quite the opposite in fact.

[ray245]

You'll get no arguments from me about that. I wanted to point out that it is possible to make morality based argument without condeming your opponents as "demons in human skin", but as you stated that's not what the OP is trying to do quite the opposite in fact.

I think what I'm really trying to say is UPC's type of post are becoming more common. I don't think this is just a one-off case, and it's part of a wider cultural trend.

[Raw Shark]

We're not all that way. If I seriously thought that my 2nd Amendment rights were threatened I might strap up and go protest in a public area, but at the moment I don't. For the record, I am very left-wing. My last protest was Occupy. I have voted Sanders since I registered at the age of 18, for Senator in the beautiful state of Vermont. USA - Diversity that is ready and able to fucking kill you, but mostly just wants a cheeseburger.

[Dragon Angel]

I think what I'm really trying to say is UPC's type of post are becoming more common. I don't think this is just a one-off case, and it's part of a wider cultural trend.

You ... have to realize what you are doing now.

UPC posted a series of posts where he misused an argument of morality to paint an entire subsection of American people in a blatantly fallacious and inflammatory binary manner. That much is a given.

Then later, you post that leftists are overusing arguments based on morality, and in each successive response you backtrack and make your position more and more vague. You point to a "wider cultural trend", but the more we point out to you that you're not thinking of this situation the right way, you repeat this vague assertion as if we're all being assimilated into such a formless blob.

This is kind of how people start to think of all progressives and all leftists as "SJWs". The word is completely meaningless precisely because its users end up using it in contexts that are either wildly different, or point to vague blobs of activists and assume every actor within them acts in such a cartoonishly-depicted way.

In other words, don't fall into that trap.

[ray245]

I think what I'm really trying to say is UPC's type of post are becoming more common. I don't think this is just a one-off case, and it's part of a wider cultural trend.

You ... have to realize what you are doing now.

UPC posted a series of posts where he misused an argument of morality to paint an entire subsection of American people in a blatantly fallacious and inflammatory binary manner. That much is a given.

Then later, you post that leftists are overusing arguments based on morality, and in each successive response you backtrack and make your position more and more vague. You point to a "wider cultural trend", but the more we point out to you that you're not thinking of this situation the right way, you repeat this vague assertion as if we're all being assimilated into such a formless blob.

This is kind of how people start to think of all progressives and all leftists as "SJWs". The word is completely meaningless precisely because its users end up using it in contexts that are either wildly different, or point to vague blobs of activists and assume every actor within them acts in such a cartoonishly-depicted way.

In other words, don't fall into that trap.

That's not what I'm saying, or trying to say. Generally speaking, I consider myself as falling in line with the various progressive movements and I think the invention of SJW is nothing more than a polemic device to attack left-wing movements. I am not saying more and more people from the left are becoming "SJW".

I'm not saying calling a Nazi a Nazi is wrong. The rise of various far-right movements that can be characterized as fascists meant that people have a legitimate basis to use such names on them. I'm saying the legitimate use of such name-calling has produced a climate in which this is more common, resulting in their misuse like what UPC is doing.

I'm well aware that most people on the left don't write inflammatory stuff that paints an entire sub-section fo American people in a very negative manner. I'm saying we should not look at UPC's behaviour as an isolated behaviour, but one that is part of a wider cultural environment. UPC is making inflammatory posts because other people around him are doing so as well.

[Dragon Angel]

That's not what I'm saying, or trying to say. Generally speaking, I consider myself as falling in line with the various progressive movements and I think the invention of SJW is nothing more than a polemic device to attack left-wing movements. I am not saying more and more people from the left are becoming "SJW".

I'm not saying calling a Nazi a Nazi is wrong. The rise of various far-right movements that can be characterized as fascists meant that people have a legitimate basis to use such names on them. I'm saying the legitimate use of such name-calling has produced a climate in which this is more common, resulting in their misuse like what UPC is doing.

I'm well aware that most people on the left don't write inflammatory stuff that paints an entire sub-section fo American people in a very negative manner. I'm saying we should not look at UPC's behaviour as an isolated behaviour, but one that is part of a wider cultural environment. UPC is making inflammatory posts because other people around him are doing so as well.

I'm not saying you are now exactly like the people who adopt SJW, but rather your thought process is slowly descending further into a pattern like theirs. I'm afraid you are looking at UPC, cross-referencing him with some indeterminate number of other people you've seen who had the same attitude as him, and thinking this is some "wider cultural trend", when ... it isn't. It's just a small roundup of people from disparate corners of the web acting like idiots.

I don't get why you're making it such a huge deal if you already know "most people" don't do this. If "most people" don't do this, then it already isn't a trend in the first place.

[ray245]

I'm not saying you are now exactly like the people who adopt SJW, but rather your thought process is slowly descending further into a pattern like theirs. I'm afraid you are looking at UPC, cross-referencing him with some indeterminate number of other people you've seen who had the same attitude as him, and thinking this is some "wider cultural trend", when ... it isn't. It's just a small roundup of people from disparate corners of the web acting like idiots.

I don't get why you're making it such a huge deal if you already know "most people" don't do this. If "most people" don't do this, then it already isn't a trend in the first place.

I know my experience isn't empirical in sense, but this is just a result of me reading some of the argument points made by people and how they chose to go about it.

The question isn't whether this is a trend that will become a norm, but whether this is a kind of attitude can be said to be a mere isolated incident or whether it arose from a specific community of people acting in a particular way.

It's kinda like how there is an "alt-right" approach to political discussions. Approaches to political rhetoric don't exist in a vacuum.

[Simon_Jester]

I think what I'm really trying to say is UPC's type of post are becoming more common. I don't think this is just a one-off case, and it's part of a wider cultural trend.

You ... have to realize what you are doing now.

UPC posted a series of posts where he misused an argument of morality to paint an entire subsection of American people in a blatantly fallacious and inflammatory binary manner. That much is a given.

Then later, you post that leftists are overusing arguments based on morality, and in each successive response you backtrack and make your position more and more vague. You point to a "wider cultural trend", but the more we point out to you that you're not thinking of this situation the right way, you repeat this vague assertion as if we're all being assimilated into such a formless blob.

This is kind of how people start to think of all progressives and all leftists as "SJWs". The word is completely meaningless precisely because its users end up using it in contexts that are either wildly different, or point to vague blobs of activists and assume every actor within them acts in such a cartoonishly-depicted way.

In other words, don't fall into that trap.

If I'm not allowed to think that because it would be falling into the "SJW panic" trap...

Purely hypothetically, what would I do if a truly problematic movement did arise within the heart of, and under the banner of, progressivism? History is full of treacherous radical movements that would cheerfully betray their own ideological allies so as to secure more control of the movement, or of the nation at large.

I can imagine some hypothetical Russian mirror of me getting more and more worried about Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the 1910s, and being confidently reassured that they're all comrades and No Enemies To The Left... until it all goes to hell, the Bolsheviks overthrow the social-democratic government, and I end up dying in a proto-Stalinist purge some time in the '20s. And the last thought that passes through my brain before the Chekist's bullet might well be something like "crap, we'd have been better off sticking with the czars..."

I can imagine some hypothetical left/right ideological mirror image of me, right here in the US, getting more and more uncomfortable from 2010 to 2020. And feeling like he's not allowed to acknowledge that there's this really creepy "alt-right" emerging, because if you start using the word "alt-right" or "neo-Nazi" to describe active participants in the mainstream political process, the communists will win! (gasp shock horror) I don't have to tell you how that could go wrong, because it's in the process of going wrong as we speak.

...

I can't shake the feeling that saying "don't even let yourself think a dangerous splinter movement is growing as a parasite within the body of Our Righteous Cause" is a very risky strategy for making sure that the Cause keeps its ranks closed and its strength united. It's the equivalent of taking immuno-suppressing drugs, or tying down the pressure release valve on a steam engine.

[Raw Shark]

Fun Fact: As a bald (mostly) white guy, I get approached as a comrade by skinheads and other supremacists a lot. I also get mistaken for a Jew frequently, and have enough experience to fake that if I want to. Just got one of those faces I guess. It gives me a long tether when it comes to fucking with them, which has become a minor hobby of mine. They'll listen to all manner of bullfuckery as long as I'm cleaning a gun and have no hair. I got into shit about aliens and all kinds of crazy talk with one guy on the job site the other day and he took it at 100% face value. I've got to entertain myself somehow or I'll go (more) nuts.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I'm tying that post into my previous post and imagining the alt-right somehow being completely oblivious to an organized splinter faction of Raw Sharks taking it over from the inside and meat-puppeting its political assets for their own demented purposes.

[Raw Shark]

I'm down.

[Dragon Angel]

Fun Fact: As a bald (mostly) white guy, I get approached as a comrade by skinheads and other supremacists a lot. I also get mistaken for a Jew frequently, and have enough experience to fake that if I want to. Just got one of those faces I guess. It gives me a long tether when it comes to fucking with them, which has become a minor hobby of mine. They'll listen to all manner of bullfuckery as long as I'm cleaning a gun and have no hair. I got into shit about aliens and all kinds of crazy talk with one guy on the job site the other day and he took it at 100% face value. I've got to entertain myself somehow or I'll go (more) nuts.

FFFFffffffff my mother is a freaking ancient aliens show lover and dedicated believer (when Fox News isn't on) and fuck me if she watches Alex Jones when I'm not looking. God this hits too close to home.

I say happy hunting!

If I'm not allowed to think that because it would be falling into the "SJW panic" trap...

Purely hypothetically, what would I do if a truly problematic movement did arise within the heart of, and under the banner of, progressivism? History is full of treacherous radical movements that would cheerfully betray their own ideological allies so as to secure more control of the movement, or of the nation at large.

I can imagine some hypothetical Russian mirror of me getting more and more worried about Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the 1910s, and being confidently reassured that they're all comrades and No Enemies To The Left... until it all goes to hell, the Bolsheviks overthrow the social-democratic government, and I end up dying in a proto-Stalinist purge some time in the '20s. And the last thought that passes through my brain before the Chekist's bullet might well be something like "crap, we'd have been better off sticking with the czars..."

I can imagine some hypothetical left/right ideological mirror image of me, right here in the US, getting more and more uncomfortable from 2010 to 2020. And feeling like he's not allowed to acknowledge that there's this really creepy "alt-right" emerging, because if you start using the word "alt-right" or "neo-Nazi" to describe active participants in the mainstream political process, the communists will win! (gasp shock horror) I don't have to tell you how that could go wrong, because it's in the process of going wrong as we speak.

...

I can't shake the feeling that saying "don't even let yourself think a dangerous splinter movement is growing as a parasite within the body of Our Righteous Cause" is a very risky strategy for making sure that the Cause keeps its ranks closed and its strength united. It's the equivalent of taking immuno-suppressing drugs, or tying down the pressure release valve on a steam engine.

...

...Does such a movement with such power exist right now?

Otherwise, this is tilting at windmills. Why should I chase ... not even a ghost, but so far yet, a fairy tale? Let's talk about the alt-left that Trump mentioned after Charlottesville I guess.

Seriously, though, Simon? This is beyond out of left field. Like, I can't fathom how you thought this would be relevant to the context of ray and I's discussion other than "well, this discussion is missing a totally random devil's advocate opinion that doesn't actually provide any more definition to 'wider cultural trend', time to add one right here!"...

Anyway, the Left having "circular firing squad" as a bit of a meme at this point and there being massive infighting right now regarding figures like Farrakhan, I think we're fine for now. People like Farrakhan and the Women's March leaders who follow him would've been better to point at than ... this.

[Ralin]

FFFFffffffff my mother is a freaking ancient aliens show lover and dedicated believer (when Fox News isn't on) and fuck me if she watches Alex Jones when I'm not looking. God this hits too close to home.

Years back someone posted an article here about a study showing that Stephen Colbert had a non-negligible conservative fanbase who thought he wasn't joking. I mentioned that to a friend of mine once and she said her mother was one of them right until the press dinner thing with Bush.

...

...Does such a movement with such power exist right now?

Otherwise, this is tilting at windmills. Why should I chase ... not even a ghost, but so far yet, a fairy tale? Let's talk about the alt-left that Trump mentioned after Charlottesville I guess.

Seriously, though, Simon? This is beyond out of left field. Like, I can't fathom how you thought this would be relevant to the context of ray and I's discussion other than "well, this discussion is missing a totally random devil's advocate opinion that doesn't actually provide any more definition to 'wider cultural trend', time to add one right here!"...

I think you're missing the point. Groups and movements like that DO crop up and not having some degree of wariness about them is a great way to make them more likely.