I’m not so sure. Life might be out there, but intelligent life capable of even wondering what those blinky things are in their sky seems exceedingly rare. Just in the one place we know it exists and took about 40% of the age of the universe and about 5 billion different tries just to get us to the point of looking up and wondering.
Someone needs to be the first or most advanced. So why not us? Maybe the answer to the Fermi paradox is: ”There just isn’t anyone out there, yet and may never be.”
I grew up in the seventies, we didn’t have the “filthy mouthed kids” media examples until Bad News Bears…however, prior to that, even without examples we still managed to be pretty filthy mouthed kids organically.
> They're still our immigration laws, we should fight to change them
It’s good advice, but a big hill to climb. The Dem politicians walk a fine line here. The influx of illegal immigrants is truly unpopular, not just with folks on the right, but also many in the moderate left and independents. They dems realize it’s a hot potato which is why you get a lot of immigration rhetoric to try and satisfy the anger, but don’t really get any effort to change any laws even when they held both branches and the presidency through 2021-2022.
Prior to 2016, both parties were pretty aligned on it, only when Trump made it a core issue did the parties start to diverge on the topic.
> The influx of illegal immigrants is truly unpopular
Does it apply to rich immigrants?
Not having housing, high medical bills, gun violence are unpopular. To blame poor immigrants is the scapegoat and many people think that kicking all of them out will solve the problems that they want to be solved. It will not.
The current state of things is that big corporations and the rich want immigration, they just do not want immigrants to have rights. The solution that they have found is to make most immigrants illegal so they have no rights, they can be paid below minimal wage and they can be blamed for being criminals so nobody looks at the rich while they literally rape minors.
I agree that is very difficult to change. But not because the average voter would not accept it, but because the rich are pushing for a narrative were immigrants are at fault of all the excesses of the rich.
I think if they are illegally here, it doesn't really matter. A rich illegal immigrant may not have the same social services strain as the poor do, but it’s still someone willfully breaking a law to gain an advantage. I am not sure how a society stays orderly if its laws are meaningless.
Plus my guess is if you are rich, chances are you are here on a legal path, because you can afford to do so and you have more to lose if you dont follow the law.
> big corporations and the rich want immigration
But I don’t think they necessarily want illegal immigration. They can certainly get around I-9 employee requirements by hiring contractors, but unless on site work is needed, why not just offshore and get it even cheaper and not have to deal with gray areas of legality by as a company trying to bypass immigration laws?
Perhaps it’s just my location in the country but virtually everyone I know is armed regardless of political leaning in my area and it’s been that way for at least the four decades I have lived here. You just assume it and it’s no big deal.
Of course here left and right tend to socialize together here and no one seems to hung up on if someone disagrees politically. For instance, I’ve been to a neighbors house and drank shitty Trump branded wine while playing Eucre with Trump casino playing cards. Had a respectful discussion about politics and while no one changed any minds, we had a great time nonetheless.
I've been to places like that! And my microcosm of personal friends is certainly like that (sans political merchandise). Unfortunately, the opposite case is a much stronger tone-setter and cautionary prompt. E.g. to use a metaphor, a person considering home security is looking at how often break-ins happen - not how often break-ins don't happen.
Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed?
That's not my experience at all - every time (possibly literally every single time) I have heard a liberal say that we don't need guns to protect government tyranny, the argument is that you could not protect yourself from the government, not that you would not need to. That seems obvious to me, so I'm a little astonished at what you're saying.
This notion of an all powerful military and the futility of defense against tyranny assumes that every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people.
What makes the 2nd a deterrent against tyranny is the notion that if things degraded to that level, the military would be compromised by the factions as well likely to the same level as the population is. That, in addition to a significant % of your population is also armed, would create the environment that a government could be changed.
Because the government is aware of this fact, it will keep itself in check.
> every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people.
Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd.
Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections.
But I’m sure the students at Kent State, for instance, would’ve been happy to know how much the government feared them. Great comment.
Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military.
You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did.
Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given).
Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.
> You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point.
It flatly doesn't. US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate. The idea that the second amendment will change anything about the US military's response or choice to follow any orders they're given no matter how reprehensible or obviously evil (My Lai, Abu Ghraib) is laughable fantasy, based on a bunch of people who want to dream about being heroes and pretend that their 9mm handgun means something.
I didn’t, do you find these two phrases functionally different? “military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry” and “ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens”
They look pretty much the same to me.
> Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.
So are you attempting to equate genocidal regimes that operated over years where millions were slaughtered to Kent State where 4 people were killed and nine wounded in less than a quarter of a minute?
> US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate.
Nowhere did I make the claim that the 2nd amendment would cause every individual military people to stop or hesitate. Actually it was quite the opposite. I said the military would faction in that situation. Also, I was speaking about the government. Individuals are not the government. The Kent State massacre was over in exactly 13 seconds. It both started organically and ended organically and timing also speaks to this being an emotional chaotic event done by individuals and not one that was specifically ordered.
Did you even read his post, he addressed that. Adding the armed citizens to the good side of the military is a significant power factor, if 10 million armed American civilians joins one side of a military internal dispute that will likely tip the scales.
I did. There is no “good side”. My grandma had blue numbers tattooed on her arm to prove it. The idea that armed citizens would universally rebel on the same side is also utterly delusional.
The argument of their hypocracy stands though, doesn't it? If someone argues that people don't need guns because they would be ineffective against their government, it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right?
> it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right?
IF that was indeed what they said, what they believed, and what they actually did, sure.
You do seem to have fashioned a weak strawman here though.
This thread appears to be about liberals, PoC's, and LGBTQ's buying guns due to a perception of increased threat from Trump supporters, MAGA cos-players, newly empowere Groypers, etc.
Not (that I can read in the article) to use against their government.
So that's a double no to both your artifically posed questions.
It seems like you're unable to follow or understand the thread. Several posts up is this post:
>It is more like if you have to worry about masked goons breaking into your house and trying to kidnap you or your family members then maybe you can't trust the government either.
Referring to agencies such as ICE, I believe. Then the post I replied to said that it's not about trust, it's about effectiveness. Now you're telling me it's not about the government at all, but essentially for general purpose self defense, which still seems hypocritical coming from the gun control crowd. Also I'm not sure what an "artificially posed" question is.
Who said the masked goons were military, or even ICE? Plenty of people running around in masks these days pretending to be ICE since ICE officers themselves won’t identify themselves or provide evidence that they are legit. They could just be thugs taking advantage of a very unprofessional arm of the federal government to justify a no-warrant home invasion.
We all know that guns, if ever used that way, will be citizen on citizen, not citizen vs the military. Both sides will think they are right, one or both sides will start with violence, the other side will be forced to respond in kind. The 2nd amendment has always been about Americans killing each other ever since the Supreme Court nullified the first clause of the amendment (which was meant to establish a Swiss-like militia). All it will take for the military to shoot a few students in cities Trump sent them to under the pretext of “preserving law and order” and the whole country is going to blow up. Heck, this is probably Trump’s plan to avoid the midterms.
You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits
No, this is a weak argument point. We know from experience that urban fighting against small arms is hugely difficult without simply wiping a swath of a population completely out…which our military could do of course, but wouldn’t against a domestic population. We generally wouldn’t even do it against foreign adversaries.
You may certainly make the argument that a sizable guerilla urban force could perform outside their weight class against a federal army. However, it makes no logical sense to assert that most liberals buying guns do so under the theory that they will organize together against their government, nor that they do or should believe that this piece of military wisdom would work out for them.
I.e. it's obviously reasonable to believe that private firearms cannot stand up to the federal government, regardless of whether it is the case under theoretical conditions.
> You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits
Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietnamese. They took on a massively more powerful military, were significantly outgunned, and came out of it in control of their respective countries. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that war is incredibly chaotic and unpredictable, and that anyone making bold and confident predictions is just about guaranteed to have reality prove them wrong.
That is not true at all, on both accounts, and I hate reading this take every time it comes up.
It shows a lack of understanding about the nature and power of insurgencies and a vast overestimation of the military's ability to protect itself should every military base, forward refueling point, and backyard airstrip suddenly become under attack. Hint: They're not really designed for that.
All of the anarchists and socialists and marginalized and oppressed communities are on the left. Their arguments against gun ownership and the second amendment were never based on an implicit trust in government.
Certainly not - their argument was always that it doesn't make sense to argue that we need guns to overthrow the government. Not that the government is broadly trustworthy.
tbh "we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed" sounds like an intentional misrepresentation of a leftist position than something many actual leftists would believe.
The political side that that often argues for more government in their political solutions seems to by default to trust the government “to not overstep its authority”?
Ahh yes, the old “let’s outlaw those things I don’t like, but others do that has billion dollar industries supporting it” approach. That always goes over well.
Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted?
I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that would no longer be reclaimed water, but potable water. Also I am convinced that landscape chemical usage would go up as well.
I have close family and friends in the business, I guarantee that huge efforts go into making sure not a single drop of irrigation isn’t used unless it’s needed. I can tell you that my neighbors don’t pay that much attention to their exact irrigation needs—simply watering for as long as they can, when they can. I doubt seriously that replacing a golf course with more homes would net much water savings…at least around me.
I think the point is that you can't ban houses through policy but you can ban golf courses. So like it or not (and I sympathize with your point), the policy knobs that can be used to curb water can only directly influence things like golf courses, but they can indirectly affect home water usage through utility pricing.
Reality is that if you are going to convert 150-200 acres of course space to residential, it’s not going to happen organically. A developer will come in and drop infrastructure and a couple of hundred homes, and then add an active HOA so folks feel good about that nice neighborhood maintaining their property values. That is going to likely demand a level of property maintenance that will work to counter any utility pricing soft control you try to impose.
I think the folks who try this ecological impact argument and want to push homes into that space just don’t think through all the consequences or assume there is a greater landscape effort than it actually takes. It’s a lot of work, but is it less that the combined work of 200 homes? Probably not. A couple of tractors vs 200 mowers? Landscape chemicals on perhaps 20 acres of the 150-200 (tees and greens, spot treat everywhere else) vs 3 homes per acre treating their whole lawn? 300-400 more vehicles driving in and out of the area everyday?
You want to outlaw them and let them go wild, I can accept that argument and can’t counter it but for “golf is fun and people enjoy it.” However if the concept that houses are better ecologically…I think that is a huge stretch.
Public parks directly serve way more people than golf courses and don’t discriminate based on income (or class, ethnicity, etc) to the same degree, if at all.
On any given Saturday the public parks around me (that are free to enter) have far less people than the golf courses around me. So just because it can serve more people, doesn’t mean that it does.
Also, pretty sure you will be hard pressed in 2025 to find courses actively discriminating anyone who has the $$ to spend to play a round. Every course I have played in the last 40 years seems to have all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds, ethnicities, and income.
I have absolutely enjoyed my time on the golf course, but much like recreational cruise ships I’ll be perfectly content with them gone too. Just because I enjoy something doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate how wasteful it is and would oppose ending or at least reducing it.
I just don’t see the waste. Unless you are just going to let those spaces go wild again you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage.
> you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage.
For more people across a broader socio-economic background. I mean come on let’s just acknowledge the elephant in the room: golf is a rich sport for upper-income/rich people that requires a massive amount of space that then often has a deleterious effect on surrounding real estate (i.e. inflates it and prices people out).
You have obviously not spent much time at a golf course if you believe it only attracts upper income/rich people. Go to your local course and drive around the parking lot sometime on a Saturday…my guess is you are going to see far more older Hondas, Hyundais and Kia’s than Bentleys.
Yeah, not gonna attract the lower income folks because it’s not a zero dollar hobby, but from experience I know the middle class is well represented.
Trot out a living EBE on live broadcast TV into the Oval Office and maybe I’ll reconsider. Until then it’s just a convenient distraction.
reply