*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

There was a point to be made about the roman empire that I didn't feel like making for wuf and that's that the decline of gruesome killings as a form of entertainment is largely contributed to the spread of christianity within the roman empire. On the other hand you have largely christian countries like the US where black people were victims of mob justice by the thousands up until the early 20th century. That includes stuff that would have been a little much for medieval europeans even.
Easy come easy go.

[oskar]

Trump could really impress me if he staged the whole Michael Cohen affair and is ultimately innocent. If he ends up looking like the victim that would be a massive win for him. The reason I'm doubtful is because it would mean we have witnessed an oscar worthy performance by someone we know for a fact can't act.

[oskar]

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c...track/dyt8e4y/

[Jack Sawyer]

I think the natural state of humankind is the stupidity you describe. Religion could be a tool that has helped populations organize more productively..

So, the Spanish Inquisition helped populations organize more productively?

[oskar]

...or more unexpectedly

[wufwugy]

It's no wonder they say freedom to carry is among the most pro-female things there is

https://v.redd.it/7r7v1rh3xgx01/DASH_600_K#mp4

[OngBonga]

Hope he died.

[oskar]

Yeah, that's fine.

So what about the roman empire thing and the captured tankers? Are we agreeing that that's just made up bullshit to prove an unrelated point?

[oskar]

checkmate liberals!

https://youtu.be/0RTHS4l-dLI?t=6m36s

[oskar]

Hope he died.

He did.

Looking it up, I thought it was funny that the most upvoted comment on /r/The_Donald is

That thread in wcgw was insane. People excusing and sympathizing with the piece of shit because his environment made him this way and she didn’t need to respond so aggressively. I can’t believe people see this and actually have that reaction. What the fuck is wrong with them?

Meanwhile in the /r/wcgw thread about this, I couldn't find a single post sympathizing with the attacker.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...are_important/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgo..._mothers_wcgw/

[OngBonga]

I'd sympathise with him at least a little bit if he didn't pull a gun out in front of kids. In that event I might have simply hoped he recovered and learned a harsh lesson.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, that's fine.

So what about the roman empire thing and the captured tankers? Are we agreeing that that's just made up bullshit to prove an unrelated point?

I tend to do one go around of responses then leave it be after each party has had some say.

[wufwugy]

If it looks to me like a conversation has moved to "each participant has a different view and wants the other to agree with it" then i think it's best to move on.

[wufwugy]

He did.

Looking it up, I thought it was funny that the most upvoted comment on /r/The_Donald is


Meanwhile in the /r/wcgw thread about this, I couldn't find a single post sympathizing with the attacker.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...are_important/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgo..._mothers_wcgw/

It's funny. Anything on Reddit, especially a place like T_D, if you take it with a whiff of a fraction of a grain of salt, you've given it too much credit already.

[wufwugy]

That said, what I imagine transpired is the person saw one comment and maybe one agreeing with it, all at very early stage of the thread, then that turned into the T_D comment. The sub may be glorious, but its standards of evidence are nutlow.

[wufwugy]

[OngBonga]

One day, when we're all old bastards, we'll be saying "remember when Chelsea Clinton was sort of cute?" and the responses will be like "man you've got a good memory" and "holy fuck yeah, time is a bastard".

I mean she's no ten, but I could do rude things to her face. But one day she'll probably look like her Mother, and I'll vomit at the thought.

[wufwugy]

i always thought she was cute.

also think hillary was cute when young. im attracted to evil tho.

[oskar]

If it looks to me like a conversation has moved to "each participant has a different view and wants the other to agree with it" then i think it's best to move on.

My view is that arguments should be fact based.

[wufwugy]

It's hard to see facts when arguing.

[oskar]

Some find it harder than others.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40573794...can-restaurant

MAGA

[BananaStand]

Some find it harder than others.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40573794...can-restaurant

MAGA

So a dude expresses his opinion regarding the dilution of American culture, and social-justice warriors destroy his entire livelihood with fraudulent reviews and deliberate false advertising?

And that's "the market doing it's thing"?

[oskar]

That sounds like something a mexican restaurant would say.

[BananaStand]

That sounds like something a mexican restaurant would say.

Sounds like something a fascist would say

[oskar]

At this point it looks like the strategy of Trumps camp is to be involved in so much corruption that Mueller can never finish his investigation. Very much like this:

[wufwugy]

There isn't corruption.

There is propaganda.

[oskar]

I'll wait for the investigation to come to a close.
But this is interesting. Do you think there are any trustworthy news sources out there that aren't anti-state propaganda from the deep state left, and why is it Breitbart?

[wufwugy]

i don't believe there are any trustworthy news sources.

[oskar]

Then what makes you so sure that "there is no corruption."

[wufwugy]

I should have said there is no corruption given public information.

[wufwugy]

Actually I shouldn't have said that, because it opens the door too much for the reader to mislead himself.

[oskar]

How considerate!

[wufwugy]

high five

[wufwugy]

Since it has been established that Trump tweets an opinion about something that might be true when he already knows it is true, this is interesting

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...51982467014656

[wufwugy]

Protip #5482: you always know who is winning by who is winning the meme wars

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

[oskar]

The thing about the law is that it protects some people and not others. It very much depends on what side of it you stand on. So whether or not an informant that was looking into foreign governments attempts to manipulate the 2016 election is a good or a bad thing very much depends on whether or not you think foreign governments manipulating the US election was a good or a bad thing.

I don't like speculating, and we'll know a lot more in a couple of months, but it does seem weird that the Trump camp has such extreme lapses of memory when it comes to their russian ties, and only seems to remember the facts after they have been uncovered by outside agents.

[oskar]

Looks like they had armed guards in Santa Fe as well. So two consecutive shootings in what weren't gun-free zones. What's the solution now? More guns or more prayers?

[oskar]

And isn't it interesting that there is so much focus put on whether or not Trump could be indited, by the Trump legal team, rather than his innocence?

[Savy]

Looks like they had armed guards in Santa Fe as well. So two consecutive shootings in what weren't gun-free zones. What's the solution now? More guns or more prayers?

I'm not exactly a big gun fanatic and yet surely I think the solution is looking at why people are feeling like they need to go into school and shoot people. Getting rid of guns will obviously reduce this problem and anyone who claims otherwise is clearly lying but it isn't dealing with the problem of why do these people want to go and shoot their peers.

Tbh I always feel some slight pity because the people who do this are either off their rocker or have been driven to do it by the horrible cunts they are surrounded by.

[Jack Sawyer]

I'm not exactly a big gun fanatic and yet surely I think the solution is looking at why people are feeling like they need to go into school and shoot people. Getting rid of guns will obviously reduce this problem and anyone who claims otherwise is clearly lying but it isn't dealing with the problem of why do these people want to go and shoot their peers.

Tbh I always feel some slight pity because the people who do this are either off their rocker or have been driven to do it by the horrible cunts they are surrounded by.

School shootings are a uniquely american phenomenon.

They’re not unique to America but the USA is definitely far and away the world leader.

Here’s Wikipedia’s list of School shootings from around the world. Canada has 18 school shootings in its entire history. The entire of Europe (including Russia) has 24. Mexico has three. Australia has five with a combined fatality total of 3.

Wikipedia has decided the USA needs its own page List of school shootings in the United States. You can see the 36 school shootings that occurred in the US in 2014 alone. In one year the USA had more school shootings that Mexico, the entire of Europe and Australia's entire history combined. There have been more deaths in school shootings so far in 2016 in the USA than in the entire of Australia’s history.

School shootings do occur in other nations but they’re incredibly rare events and decades go past without them occuring. They happen on a monthly basis in the US.

Can we blame normalization?

[wufwugy]

I consider the 2nd Amendment the most important policy in human history. I believe if that goes away, the end result would be untold millions of deaths.

[Savy]

I consider the 2nd Amendment the most important policy in human history. I believe if that goes away, the end result would be untold millions of deaths.

Because you're a boring yank.

[Savy]

School shootings are a uniquely american phenomenon.

So America is the problem.

But what about America because most things in that video weren't American phenomenon. They are what sells and what sells sells across every country. Is that stating that given enough time all media will become Americanised enough in which case this issue of school shootings shoudl become more wide spread?

So still, what is the issue?

[Jack Sawyer]

So America is the problem.

But what about America because most things in that video weren't American phenomenon. They are what sells and what sells sells across every country. Is that stating that given enough time all media will become Americanised enough in which case this issue of school shootings shoudl become more wide spread?

This dude is going out of his way to find a different culprit rather than the "total amount of guns (also per capita)" or "ease of arming oneself" arguments.

He, however, concentrates on the seed. Right now, as I pointed out before it's a rather uniquely American phenomenon. Even so, most of the shootings that do happen do not even leave the local news. It's that normalized. Just another Tuesday.

So, the argument in that video is that

it's happening > it's covered more in the 24h news cycle because sensationalism, ads > becomes more glamorous somehow, attracting the "right" candidates > it happens more.


There are leaps in logic in that reasoning (such as where the fuck do they get the weapons in the first place) which is why I posted it here to initiate some kind of a discussion on the topic for the nth time, but we are already at the point that the mass shooting cat is long out of the proverbial bag.

So still, what is the issue?

That would be mass shootings, kind sir.

[Savy]

Your own arguments don't add up though. Shootings are so common they aren't even reported locally (which is bullshit) to any possible shooting is so aggressively covered everyone wants to be at it.

UK shootings gain the exact same US media if not more and it's exactly the same every time a US shooting happens. In fact we get the ability to report that news with some slight moral superiority so if anything we report it more.

Yet still no one really asks kids why they do it.

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL

Your own arguments don't add up though. Shootings are so common they aren't even reported locally (which is bullshit) to any possible shooting is so aggressively covered everyone wants to be at it.

I suggest you reread my post above. I even added a "So, the argument in that video is that" line to suggest that the argument is made in the videos, yet not necessarily my own.

I also added "There are leaps in logic in that reasoning (such as where the fuck do they get the weapons in the first place) which is why I posted it here to initiate some kind of a discussion on the topic for the nth time", but clearly you did not see this yet are arguing as if my position equals that in the video.



Let's try again

Shootings are so common they aren't even reported locally (which is bullshit)

Did I ever claim something as ridiculous as that?

to any possible shooting is so aggressively covered everyone wants to be at it.

http://www.shootingtracker.com/

Most shootings do not leave the local news, which is indicative to how common they are. With this I mean they are only covered in local news, yet not on a national scale in the US. You can check out the website I linked above. As you can see, it's literally a daily thing. Covering all of this nationally would be simply overwhelming

UK shootings gain the exact same US media if not more and it's exactly the same every time a US shooting happens. In fact we get the ability to report that news with some slight moral superiority so if anything we report it more.

Yet still no one really asks kids why they do it.

I did not know that mass shootings was a problem in the UK



So, to clarify, my position is akin to "total amount of guns (also per capita)" or "ease of arming oneself" in the USA are the clear culprits of what is going on over there.

[oskar]

I consider the 2nd Amendment the most important policy in human history. I believe if that goes away, the end result would be untold millions of deaths.

Do you think more relaxed gun laws would result in less deaths, or is this more of a boolean situation where the exact strictness of gun laws as it exists in the US today does not result in untold millions of deaths, but making them any more strict would unavoidably result in millions of deaths?

[wufwugy]

Do you think more relaxed gun laws would result in less deaths

It depends on how. If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry in places (most places) they currently are not, I think gun deaths would decline. If the laws that are already on the books about cracking down on criminals with guns were more adhered to, I think gun deaths would decline.

or is this more of a boolean situation where the exact strictness of gun laws as it exists in the US today does not result in untold millions of deaths, but making them any more strict would unavoidably result in millions of deaths?

Definitely not boolean. I'm not sure the kind of distribution it would be called, but the tail is fat.

I think that if China, USSR, and Germany had a 2nd Amendment, both in law and in the heart of the culture, the atrocities that resulted in over 100 million deaths would not have occurred. I think countries being on the precipice of potential genocide will happen in the future. I think it won't happen in America as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, and that since WW2, the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the world because of the US military's position.

[oskar]

The restrictions on gun ownership in nazi germany only targeted jews, or less than 1% of the population. If gun ownership had an impact on tyrannical takeover and systematic extermination, you should find cases where homosexuals, other undesirables, or simple people opposing the takeover by the nazi party were able to fight back because they still were able to legally own weapons.

Not that I really see any parallels because the argument isn't about taking away people's guns. It's about more strict background checks, raising the legal age, holding people accountable for securing their weapons and making it harder to purchase semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

[wufwugy]

It takes a culture as well as a law.

[BananaStand]

Yet still no one really asks kids why they do it.

False

You just never hear about because the kids never say "I did it because guns are fun and easy to get". The real answer doesn't help advance the left's political agenda, so it's not newsworthy.

[BananaStand]

It's about more strict background checks,

Already a thing.

raising the legal age

Why?

holding people accountable for securing their weapons

Also, already a thing.

and making it harder to purchase semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines

Why? And what do mean exactly by "make it harder"?

Do you even know how "rights" work?
Do you know what "inalienable" means?
Do you know what "shall not be infringed" means?

It means that liberal ass holes can't just put up roadblocks wherever they want just to "make things harder". That's NOT what a good government does.

[oskar]

[Savy]

False

You just never hear about because the kids never say "I did it because guns are fun and easy to get". The real answer doesn't help advance the left's political agenda, so it's not newsworthy.

I agree, that being said it's not like the news is explicitly left.

Someone got shot not that far away from where I live the other day, but guns are illegal :/

[BananaStand]

I agree, that being said it's not like the news is explicitly left.

My only point is that we DO know why people commit crimes like this. They are unable to bear the suffering in their life. They blame life itself for the suffering. And on their way to escaping life and its inherent suffering, they take their revenge on life. Taking revenge on life means causing as much havoc, mayhem, sadness, suffering, anger, and hysteria as possible. Random mass murder accomplishes that.

The obvious follow up question should be "Why was he so mad?"

Instead the leftist news media asks "Why did he have a gun?" and "Why didn't a psychologist exercise tyrannical control over this person's life and prevent this?" [Cause psychologists are all open minded, level headed, unbiased people without political agendas.....right?]

[oskar]

https://youtu.be/DpJtqFXvriU?t=3m0s

General Michael Hayden with his masterclass on how to call the president retarded on national television.

[oskar]

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05...ent=8863218046

The Handmaids Tale is not a manual!

[wufwugy]

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05...ent=8863218046

The Handmaids Tale is not a manual!

All prohibition on business employment discrimination should be eliminated. We would find that resulting in fewer unjust and unfair practices.

[oskar]

Can you give an example in history where this has been shown to hold true?

[wufwugy]

Can you give an example in history where this has been shown to hold true?

Donald Sterling was believed to be a racist and lost his franchise because of it.


The principle at play is an economics one. Allowing producers to discriminate makes them bear the cost of their discrimination.

[oskar]

Have you seen the Harvest of Shame? It's about migrant farm workers in the 60's in the north carolina region. Comes to mind as an example where the producers didn't exactly bear the cost of their discrimination. They reaped the profits of their discrimination would be a more accurate way of describing it.

[Jack Sawyer]

I think it won't happen in America as long as we have the 2nd Amendment, and that since WW2, the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the world because of the US military's position.

Wow

I'm not sure Iraquis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Yemenis, Mexicans etc. would agree with how your precious second amendment protected them

[wufwugy]

Wow

I'm not sure Iraquis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Yemenis, Mexicans etc. would agree with how your precious second amendment protected them

That's a good example of why one should never give details to somebody who is looking for a disagreement. Just state your position and leave it at that.

[oskar]

Jesus christ, thanks for deleting that. Holy shit, I was about to rain down the wrath of god on you. Goddammit. But please do try again.

[wufwugy]

Have you seen the Harvest of Shame? It's about migrant farm workers in the 60's in the north carolina region. Comes to mind as an example where the producers didn't exactly bear the cost of their discrimination. They reaped the profits of their discrimination would be a more accurate way of describing it.

I shouldn't have given an example, but I did because you asked.

Social "sciences" are very tough to discuss in terms of data. There is always a very large amount of data that tells any story in this field with countless confounding variables.

The heritage of economics is logic. It's a model of mathematical and behavioral constraints.

The Harvest of Shame (and Donald Sterling) are subsets of the whole. Even if the principle that allowing discrimination by businesses to be legal makes discrimination more costly, there will be variation in the data that makes some of the subsets look like they don't demonstrate that principle.

[wufwugy]

Deleted only so I could better format and re-up.

[oskar]

That's a good example of why one should never give details to somebody who is looking for a disagreement. Just state your position and leave it at that.

Fascism creeps up on you. Dictators are elected, more often than not. I agree that any re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment has to be done with care, but at the same time you are enthusiastically supporting a president who has before and after the election repeatedly expressed his disregard for the first amendment, which I would consider a lot more dangerous.

[wufwugy]

president who has before and after the election repeatedly expressed his disregard for the first amendment, which I would consider a lot more dangerous.

How's that?

[oskar]

Deleted only so I could better format and re-up.

fml

Maybe it works in theory, but it clearly doesn't work in practice. It has been tried and is being tried all over the world with repeatable results.

[oskar]

How's that?

He stated before the election that he thought people who burn the flag should have their citizenship revoked. More recently he has announced to reform libel laws so he could more easily sue newspapers for defamation.

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...47410472480769

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/polit...th-north-korea

[wufwugy]

fml

Maybe it works in theory, but it clearly doesn't work in practice. It has been tried and is being tried all over the world with repeatable results.

Nobody has the remotest clue how to design a study that can scratch the surface of examining the issue.