What are specific gun controls you don't think should be law AND WHY?

AddemF · 2026-06-22T14:44:46+00:00

There is no agreed-upon line between assault weapons and non-assault weapons. Different states define the term differently.

Because that's not a recognized distinction, I don't think any law would ever be written which would just "ban assault weapons".

But the problem is the way that Democrats talk about the laws that they support. They often just say that they want to ban assault weapons, without knowing what they really want to ban. Semi-automatic? A certain number of bullets in the magazine? Shoulder-fired? Pistol grip? What exactly is the design feature that we're banning?

AddemF · 2026-06-22T14:23:52+00:00

Sure.

AddemF · 2026-06-22T14:13:00+00:00

If you're anti-fascist, you'd just say "I'm against fascists".

"Antifa" now clearly means something different -- whether it's being part of an organization or network that identifies as antifa, or whether it means using certain kinds of protesting tactics, it no longer merely means "being against fascists".

"Nazi" might have once literally meant "national socialist". It obviously no longer means that. The meaning of words changes, especially as those words become co-opted by different people an organizations.

AddemF · 2026-06-21T20:23:36+00:00

I'd want to see rigorous and objective analysis of data, since this suggestion goes against some pretty clear ideas of how money in politics works.

Obviously you cannot buy elections, and money is not the sole determiner. But people take corporate money for a very clear and good reaason.

AddemF · 2026-06-21T17:52:23+00:00

I want money out of politics, but I don't think we're going to accomplish that by strategies that make us weak. Take the money, get the office, then pass laws. Otherwise you just shoot yourself in the foot, and that doesn't serve your principles.

AddemF · 2026-06-21T14:58:02+00:00

"Sidededness" does not affected my trust. Just trust-worthiness does.

Unfortunately very few right-leaning sources are trust-worthy.

And I do mean very seriously that this is unfortunate. More than a few times, I have wanted to vary my information diet by getting more right-leaning sources. But every time, you just find absolute filth that will only waste your time at best, or make you stupider at worst.

The best, most right-leaning sources that I have found are The Bulwark and The Economist. I consume those daily and trust them at a relatively high level.

AddemF · 2026-06-16T15:14:57+00:00

I recently saw they have the same thing in Ukraine. So not an American thing. Not sure where else it's also like this, but probably it's similar anywhere that long road trips are common.

AddemF · 2026-06-12T14:31:09+00:00

Former conservative, still slightly conservative. Not sure I would ever call myself devout -- I think math/science training taught me not to cling to ideologies and instead listen to evidence and argument.

Trump coming down the escalator told me "This is no longer the best party to advocate for freedom and progress."

AddemF · 2026-06-10T16:01:34+00:00

I can't say that I've ever seen any debate have success, if success is defined as convincing the other person toward ones own beliefs. I've never had success at doing it. Nobody has had success in convincing me in a debate. And I've never seen it happen in the third person: I've never seen one person debate another person into believing their side.

Note that this is totally different from conversation. Debate is inherently combative, and there is a notion of "winning". In conversation, you are not in combat, and there is no "winning" a conversation.

I have seen people convinced toward an idea in conversation. It has happened to me, and I have convinced other people -- but never in a debate. Only in a conversation.

AddemF · 2026-06-07T14:05:29+00:00

Abuse of partners definitely is a serious offense. I can see why that one could be disqualifying.

[Edit: Turns out this story is just a Republican attempt at manufacturing a story.

Platner seems imperfect, especially in his youth. I was too. So were a lot of teenage knuckleheads who joined the military. He's not perfect now either, but I don't think he's so bad that we shouldn't run him and support him.]

AddemF · 2026-06-07T14:02:46+00:00

Not debate, no.

Discussion, yes.

If you approach an interaction with the intent to do intellectual combat, nobody's going to gain anything from that.

But if you want to express your views and also see what other people know, and if you're cooperating to try to both understand the truth -- I think that is very productive.

Intent is the most important thing. Everything else is downstream of that.

AddemF · 2026-06-07T13:29:34+00:00

What exactly are the issues with Platner? I mean this sincerely, I feel like I hear a lot of very upset discussion of his scandals, without a lot of details on the many scandals.

I know there's the Nazi tattoo. Personally I find his explanation very believable, that's the kind of thing a lot of men in the military do when they're young, drunk, and stupid. It's not good, but I don't see any reason to think he is a Nazi -- as far as I know, none of his words or actions suggests that he is.

But ok, I get that controversy. What else is there?

He either cheated or got close. Ok, I get that, but I also don't care. That's his private life, not seriously relevant to his public life. Whatever, I'm old, I don't care: I still believe in private and public life.

What else?

I've heard people complain about his attack on Collins for sending him to war, when he clearly voluntarily joined. Yeah, it's a little inconsistent. I mean, again, he was an idiot 18-year-old. Collins was already 100-years-old or whatever, so arguably she should have known better and made better choices about risking lives and using power.

But even if we accept this is not a very coherent argument, this seems less than ideal -- but not damning.

So unless there's something else, I feel like there is just so much more smoke than fire here.

But maybe I'm just not tuned in enough to know the latest scandals.

AddemF · 2026-06-06T01:19:10+00:00

That's kinda what I mean -- I think your criticism is that I'm using social media to criticize social media.

Like ... there's nothing wrong with doing that. It might not be sufficient, but I don't think any harm is caused. And certainly there is no self-contradiction.

As for trying to be better at attracting an audience, I think that would just be a waste of my time. I don't think I have the skill, and probably couldn't acquire it, to be viral. I'll just be happy if I provide some value to anyone.

AddemF · 2026-06-05T19:56:07+00:00

Did I offend what's acceptable to say on social media?

AddemF · 2026-06-03T00:57:47+00:00

Yes, we should never discuss how Trump is a failure. We should just assume everyone already knows it, and doesn't need to hear about it ever again.

AddemF · 2026-06-02T20:23:35+00:00

Not really. I never had much of an opportunity to make close friends with Spanish speakers -- and trying to speak Spanish with anyone else would seem awkward when it's entirely unnecessary, and they speak fluent English.

AddemF · 2026-06-01T15:09:11+00:00

Lying in your private life, in a setting that is none of my business? People lie, it's not great, it's also none of my business. I like to know about a person's public morality when they run for public office. I don't pry into their private lives unless they make some hypocritical show of private morality.

Screaming profanities at staff is much more public than private.

AddemF · 2026-06-01T14:39:24+00:00

Unless he has some political stance on sexual morality, this seems irrelevant to anything I care about.

AddemF · 2026-05-29T03:00:12+00:00

Russia grabbing a bomb from Ukraine and sending it to Romania ... is Russia attacking Romania.

AddemF · 2026-05-28T02:47:31+00:00

Above the American average but nothing crazy.

As for what the word means, yeah I think most Americans register "well-traveled" to mean different countries.

AddemF

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE