Thing is, I'm not going to post offensive garbage here because some tone-deaf Aussie read the wrong PC language manual. What if someone who knows me stops by this forum?
Is that specifically Australophobic, or just a distracting pretense? The thing is that if someone who knows you stops by the forum, you will have already embarrassed yourself. To the one, if we've been here long enough, we all have. To the other, though, seriously, guns for stalkers, politics for predators; hell, we can even watch you
try to manufacture a fallacy↑ in this thread, so, yeah, if someone you know shows up and you're ashamed, just blame your own posts on other people
like you already do↗.
Meanwhile, as long as you're on the subject of yourself, I suppose I am curious just what exposure you think you have under tougher gun laws.
And it's true I'll give you credit for variation on theme, but you didn't really clsoe the circle in those late paragraphs, so it's left reading like a version of not being racist because you have [_____] friends worked in there. And I know that review offends you, but your response seems to favor pursuit of satisfaction, and that likely has some deleterious effect on what you are trying to communicate. Like the posts from 2015; I can actually see what might be a couple of
simple gaffes↗, potential errors of omission, and there is a context by which I would chuckle and shrug, but most days I feel like the only person left for whom that context even exists. For your part, your refusal to attend what people are actually saying is a powerful functional challenge: You gaffed by not being clear enough on particular issues; there is also, in that old formulation, an appearance of presupposed consistency on your part that does not coincide with or reflect in other people's assessments; when you fall back to pretending offense instead of clarifying, you appear to be standing on tacit presuppositions nobody else acknowledges, such that those presuppositions are only functional within your perspective. Even having the opportunity to clarify, you managed to appeal to other people to
"think a sec"↗, but couldn't be bothered to actually say anything meaningful. When the answer is to simply parse the gaffe—which then opens a context for people to "think a sec"—in order to assuage what you consider their misinterpretation, that is somehow the one thing you did not do. The paragraphs actually stand out, these years later—
Seems to be before, one would assume, looking around.
Look, guys, think a sec: why was I posting there? What's my argument? I was posting about avenues of action, issues that could be addressed by those wishing to reduce gun violence in the US that have not been pretrashed by this garbage fight between extremist camps on - uniquely - both sides of the gun control issue. First a little paragraph observing the gun control issue is ruined, then an intro sentence on how there is hope, there are issues that have not been pretrashed by the loonies and offer opportunity for reason and cooperation and negotiation and coherent action widely supported by Americans, that also bid fair to enable significant gains in gun violence reduction. Then I listed a few. It's not a subtle point. I was asked for suggestions on reducing gun violence in the US, and my suggestion was to abandon gun control for a while and focus on these other areas where there is hope of significant progress.
Do you have an argument against that? Do you object to some of the issues I claim can be addressed in ways that would reduce gun violence in the US significantly - you think addressing them properly wouldn't work to reduce gun violence?
—in no small part for their failure to address the issue at hand; you managed to do it again a
couple posts later↗. Try writing an actual, arguable thesis every once in a while. And, sure, that goes for a lot of people both here and at large. And go ahead and complain that you do, because when we look at those, certain differences will be apparent. When the actual argument, for instance, is just a whip-tail appended to the truculent retort that appears to be your priority—
I got nothin'. The spittleflingers have, in my opinion, completely wrecked the machinery of legislation and sound governance in this matter, and only time will allow repair. We can maybe get some reasonable background checks through, some backlash against open carry threats should allow a gain here and there, but not much else. The realistic prospects of beneficial changes are not worth the career of a single good candidate for any office in the country. Just my opinion.
Fortunately, big improvements in gun violence rates in the US are available in several ways not as yet pre-trashed. Drug war laws, mass incarceration of black men, militarization of the police, and some sensible improvements in mental health care and the formal handling of domestic abuse, are all on the table. They would not require extraordinary leadership, they have wide popular support, and they are likely to work imho. So that's my suggestion for the near term.
(#3332915/41↗)
—the potential for skittstyle gaffes rises dramatically. You led with Bitter Pilate, spitting insult as an excuse for not putting any effort into more substantial consideration, and that priority very much appears to have contributed to what, at best, is mere slipshod syntax for not having been important enough to warrant the effort of not failing.
And if I write the gaffe and justification for you, what stands out is that you
wouldn't. So it's really weird to explain that yes, there are reasons something you seem to think implicit, that I can actually find
a context for, didn't communicate, because if it really is that simple, then so also is the point that you
would not cover that vector as obvious and significant as the sun in the sky. And, in the end, who am I to box in your context, like that? Abstract alternative contexts aren't applicable until or unless they are not abstract alternatives.
I figure there must be a reason why you won't navigate that course, but only you would know what it is.
