Michael Tsarion on Race, Jordan Peterson, and Why Conspiracy Work is Spiritual Work |372|

If you want to know what causes school shootings, follow the money. Journalists know coverage of school shootings causes copycat shootings. But they cover those stories because it increases ratings. Who is controlling them?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385059
Research shows that, in fact, mass shooters may be more likely to act when there has recently been a high-profile mass killing, a model more attune to viral infection than pure copycat.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know what causes school shootings, follow the money. Cities refuse to arrest teens so the cities can qualify for federal grant money.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/966854507744374784.html

The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent, entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes.

5.The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to "improve their statistics" and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein.
...
Initially the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn't take long until felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused.
...​



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html
Cruz reportedly had dozens of run-ins with law enforcement prior to Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High dating back to 2010. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Friday that there were "20 calls for services in the last few years."​
 
Last edited:
Actually, I've read some controversy on this topic and it is not at all black and white. I don't know enough to offer further comment, but I'd be inclined to really look into this claim. (I first heard this on a Mysterious Universe interview, but followed up on some articles afterward).
It really is clear-cut:

FactCheck: might there have been people in Australia prior to Aboriginal people?:

As previously discussed on The Conversation, there is a strong research case for the biological continuity between pre-European and modern Aboriginal populations of Australia.

It is true that there has been, historically, a small number of claims that there were people in Australia before Australian Aborigines, but these claims have all been refuted and are no longer widely debated. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports the idea that Aboriginal people were the first Australians.

The disagreements that can be found in the literature are normal in the accumulation of knowledge but do not undermine the strength of the modern consensus that the first people to live in Australia were ancestors of the Aboriginal people who lived here when Europeans first arrived and colonised.

Although there is a small amount of truth in the Senator’s claims about what is in the literature, the claims do not stack up against modern knowledge of the evidence.
Who we should recognise as First Australians in the constitution:

In addition to Indigenous peoples’ own understandings of their origins, archaeologists, anthropologists and other scientists have since the 1950s accumulated an enormous body of evidence relating to the First Australians.

Australia’s population history is complex, but from the fossil human record, which includes the very early burials of Mungo Man and Woman some 42,000 years ago, it is clear that there are strong physical similarities between these earliest human remains and modern-day Aboriginal Australians.

This is further supported by the record from Aboriginal genomes. Studies in genetics explore the relationships between ancient populations by looking for variations in DNA that reflect genetic history. This can tell us things such as how long ago one group may have diverged from another.

[...]

The first Aboriginal full-genome study in 2011 showed an unbroken Aboriginal lineage over 2,500 generations, or about 60,000-75,000 years, the longest continuous lineage outside Africa. It identified a number of genetic signatures that were unique to Australia.
New DNA technology confirms Aboriginal people as first Australians:

This article explains that the findings of a 2001 study have been overturned. That 2001 study found that the supposed DNA sequenced from the 40,000 year old remains of "Mungo Man" were of non-Aboriginal origin. The 2016 study reanalysed the DNA using newer sequencing methods and found that the DNA "contained sequences from five different European people, suggesting that these all represent contamination".
 
Strawman is second most tedious and retarded argument, after Ad Hom.
You’re believe your so smart, don’t you? Well, smart or not, you and Jim can keep up your many convoluted arguments while thousands of innocents die. Eventually your type will die out and the USA might make some progress.
 
Who mentioned genocide? Not me.

The US is becoming a type of teaching zoo, so that the rest of the world can learn how not to behave. But don’t worry, we’re not really any better.

Carry on! :)
 
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
This is a very helpful post Jim, thank you.

USA is a country largely gripped by fear, the whole gun thing is just one reflection of this, imo.
If folks would turn off their TV and internet and spend 2 weeks in natural surroundings or in their community (not talking about what's on TV) I seriously doubt they would find this country dangerous or gripped by fear. It is the media pushing this. They are telling us what/who to be afraid of 24/7. Most folks don't understand how safe we really are I think and how low violent crime is in most places.

Here's some food for thought next time you see a mass shooting covered on TV, followed by the requisite call to give up our guns: I could poison to death or serious illness a classroom full of children with herbs growing in my garden.
 
I certainly would encourage spending time in nature, something I haven’t done enough of since growing up in Africa, also the media is a total nightmare.

I think you have a valid case for owning a gun, but the same can’t be said for the majority imo.

I don’t really know what to say about your final para. It would be good if you could try being without guns for a limited period as an experiment. You would qualify as being exempted apart from one rifle, don’t panic! ;)
 
I'm genuinely curious to read a thoughtful perspective on why high capacity, "modded to full auto" assault rifles should in public hands and where the line should be drawn as mortal tech inevitably advances (unlimited ammunition, auto fire "ray" guns or whatever).

I'm not a ban all guns guy, but I can't wrap my head around why the above mentioned weapons should be for broad public distribution and where the line should be drawn.
 
I'm genuinely curious to read a thoughtful perspective on why high capacity, "modded to full auto" assault rifles should in public hands and where the line should be drawn as mortal tech inevitably advances (unlimited ammunition, auto fire "ray" guns or whatever).

I'm not a ban all guns guy, but I can't wrap my head around why the above mentioned weapons should be for broad public distribution and where the line should be drawn.
You can find aswers to your question here:
Debate.org:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fully-automatic-weapons-be-legal
Should fully automatic weapons be legal?​

I don't have an answer for your question because in the US we don't have to justify why we need something that is not restricted by the constitution. And the right to bear arms by individuals is not restricted by the constitution. The second amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The constitution does not grant the right to bear arms, it says the right "shall not be infringed", ie the natural right of people to own arms is not restricted by the constitution. If someone thinks certain arms should be restricted, they have to justify restricting them on legal grounds not moral grounds.

Many people seem to think that rights exist because they are granted by the government. However, rights naturally belong to the people and the government can only do what we, the people, agree to allow it to do.This was the attitude of the people who fought for their freedom from Great Britain and founded the United States of America.

Many people feel very strongly that this attitude towards government is crucial to maintaining freedom against creeping oppression. They don't want to see any of their rights restricted on principle because they don't believe government is benevolent.
 
Last edited:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...keep-us-safe-glenn-reynolds-column/371372002/

Florida shooting yet another government failure to keep us safe
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist Published 5:04 p.m. ET Feb. 25, 2018
...
We have more government, at all levels, than we’ve ever had before. Yet failures like this keep happening. The FBI, after all, missed the Tsarnaevs (who committed the Boston Marathon bombing) despite being warned by the Russian government. It missed the 9/11 attacks even though it was investigating Zacarias Moussaoui — agents investigating Moussaoui hit so many roadblocks that they joked that Osama bin Laden must have had a mole in the Bureau HQ. And, of course, the San Bernardino shooters and Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen escaped the net as well.

People are being asked to trust the government to keep them safe, when the government is patently unable to do so. And then, when the government fails, it engages in blame-shifting deflection. Why should people listen? Increasingly, they won’t.

Glenn Reynolds's blog is here:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
 
You can find aswers to your question here:
Debate.org:
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-fully-automatic-weapons-be-legal
Should fully automatic weapons be legal?

I don't have an answer for your question because in the US we don't have to justify why we need something that is not restricted by the constitution. And the right to bear arms by individuals is not restricted by the constitution. The second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The constitution does not grant the right to bear arms, it says the right "shall not be infringed", ie the natural right of people to own arms is not restricted by the constitution. If someone thinks certain arms should be restricted, they have to justify restricting them on legal grounds not moral grounds.

Many people seem to think that rights exist because they are granted by the government. However, rights naturally belong to the people and the government can only do what we, the people, agree to allow it to do.This was the attitude of the people who fought for their freedom from Great Britain and founded the United States of America.

Many people feel very strongly that this attitude towards government is crucial to maintaining freedom against creeping oppression. They don't want to see any of their rights restricted on principle because they don't believe government is benevolent.
Thanks Jim. I scanned the link you provided but found the arguments on both sides more general and quite frankly wide ranging in value.

My question is where is the line drawn? I could literally interpret your response to indicate that all manner of weapons of war should be available to every citizen. Hell, a bunch of civilians armed with semi-automatic rifles, hunting shotguns, and hand guns would be no match for a modern, well armed force intent on breaching the security of our free state.

Why aren't fully automatic weapons legal for purchase? (Yes, I know you can try to buy one that was made before 1986. They have been outlawed for new sale since then.)

Why aren't assault vehicles legal for purchase? What about small scale nukes?

My question is how is this line drawn today? Does it make sense the way we make such distinctions today?
 
Ordinary people are touched enough by the extraordinary number of innocent lives lost that they are desperately looking for some solutions among the seemingly blinkered gun owners.
Your point is fair that there is a lot of genuine push from concerned citizens though its easy to consider your opposition crazy when you never bother to read their side of the story.
 
LetsEat, DpDownSouth, what are you writing here about 1990s Russia is true, but incomplete - in fact, it is exactly HALF true.

The full truth that 1990s was BOTH wonderful and horrible, beautiful and ugly, blissful and miserable epoch. All in the same time.

Effectively, the 1990s Russia was close to the "anarcho-capitalism" which is so eagerly defended by some Americans (and a few Europeans, as well as a very few Russians) nowadays. State was formerly there, but effectively it was largely non-existent.

The great and positive side of this situation was an unlimited and unrestrained personal freedom - intellectual, creative, religious, spiritual, sexual, somatic, social, communal, any other kind one can imagine. Anyone can learn what one willed, say what one willed, create what one willed, sleep with anyone who willed it, believe and worship anything one willed, try any spiritual practice one willed, use any substance one willed, befreind anyone who willed, live with anyone who willed, etc. There were no restrictions and limitations whatsoever, one's will being free to fulfill itself fully. And it was great.

What was not so great - and what destroyed the 1990s social experiment in the end - was the painful fact that no economic provision, political protection or environmental preservation were available. State that could grant them was dysfuctional, and there was no highly-developed network-type social organisation that could provide them, thus taking the positive role of the state while rejecting its negative - violent and restictive - side. So, all the negative events that you describe above took place - people starved to death or was killed by gangsters; employers exploited the workers, didn't pay them and hired the aforementioned ganagsters to deal with the protesting employees; cultural relics and sites was ruined, or stolen and sold, and since organisation sustaining them could not survive on a commercial basis; air, water and soil were poisoned since no environmental regulations were working; etc., etc.

Unfortunately, most people prefer economic provision, political protection or environmental preservation to the personal freedom and fulfillment of one's will. So, when Putin and his company of largely (former-)intelligence-services-police-and-military supporters came and proposed Russians a dark bargain - to sacrifice one's freedom and will for sake of safety and support - most people agreed enthusiastically.

Since then, Russia was an authoritarian state under the control of a life-long dictator and his clique. Yet, these rulers did kept their part of the bargain - economic support, end of mass gangsterism, some attention to ecology etc. A lot of people's lives did became more safe and prosperous under Putin. Yet the payment was the freedom these people once enjoyed.

Recently, however, the bargain between power and populace that maintained Putin's rule for so long became to crubmle - being drunk with the imperialistic and shauvinist propaganda about "the greatness of Russia" that was the ideological justification of the regime, the rulers apparently believed in it themselves and became aggressive on the international arena. This lead them to the global clash with the currently-dominant Western states, lead by the USA, and problems at home and abroad. In home, particularly, Putin' rule, that may be initally characterised as (relatively) "soft" dictatorship, became "harder" and even "harder" still, increasing level of suppression and repression of any sign of dissent, as economic prosperity waned. This day, I can't say what will be next for Russia, but the perspectives are quite grim, since Russian economy is weakening and Russian politics grow more and more oppressive internally, and more and more confrontational externally, literally every year (if not every month)...
Very interesting to read the perspective of someone who has lived through it. :)

This part...
"Recently, however, the bargain between power and populace that maintained Putin's rule for so long became to crubmle - being drunk with the imperialistic and shauvinist propaganda about "the greatness of Russia" that was the ideological justification of the regime, the rulers apparently believed in it themselves and became aggressive on the international arena. This lead them to the global clash with the currently-dominant Western states, lead by the USA,"

From my perspective here in the USA, this clash was unavoidable unless the leaders of Russia merely capitulated. I see our government leading aggressive actions against Russia in attempt to make it (and basically every other state in the world) a vassal state subservient to the Western powers. The US and NATO have encircled Russia with a missile "defense" shield which everyone knows can be rapidly and stealthily re-purposed for offense. Personally, I thought Putin's timing when he stepped into the Syria conflict and the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict was impeccable and he seemed to invest the absolute minimum resources to the maximum effect and made it impossible for the U.S. to hide the hypocrisy in its narrative (fighting with and against Al-Qaeda and ISIS).

I think basically, Putin and his KGB buddies got together in the 90's and said, "we've either got to get our stuff together and immediately re-instate an effective command and control system or the U.S. and NATO are going to completely exploit this moment of weakness and make Russia a vassal state and once again put the worst kind of corrupt oligarchs over us. Do we want to try to restore Russia, or do we want to be a vassal state?" And yeah, maybe Putin is too hardline and not big enough on freedom for my taste either (I don't really know not having ever lived there), and I'm sure he isn't totally without corruption either, but I have to admire how he kept Russia from essentially being captured after the fall of the Soviet Union and how he has on multiple occasions seemingly outwitted and outmaneuvered the Western Intelligence agencies. ... or maybe it is all a show and a game and he's really buddies with them behind the scenes, but I don't think so... not when you have ex-CIA chiefs like Mike Morrell snarling and practically foaming at the mouth wanting to kill some Russians:

I'm not saying whether Putin is ultimately the best for the Russian people or not, and I'm sure in due time his strongman persona won't be needed. I'm only saying I can admire his geopolitical chess game, and I think without him, there wouldn't be much resistance to Western hegemony over there, and Russian culture would be in the next phase of systematic destruction much like other parts of Western culture are now... and there is a very good chance Russia would be ruled by somebody much worse than Putin and Syria would be ruled by someone worse than Assad. In the USA where Presidents are mere puppets who speak on a 4th grade level, it is enviable to see a nation led by a truly brilliant geopolitical chess player, strong leadership skills, and a quick wit. I think historians of the future without the present biases will admire Putin for what he has accomplished for Russia.

The best we can hope for is that a nuclear war never gets instigated and the lights and the internet stay on (otherwise this post might be enough to hang me!), and the power of networking and dialogue through the internet allows people of every nation to put a severe check on corrupt hierarchical powers in their respective nations. When there is no networking and the people are ill informed and uncultured, hierarchical power will dominate and the only thing that can keep a worse form of hierarchical power from dominating is stronger hierarchical power with smarter more benevolent leadership - which I hope is what you have in Putin. Or maybe he's just a billionaire p----- grabbing asshole too, I don't really know.
 
Top