Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hga | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The Alt Right's position on your first paragraph is that all those are fine, but those "basic human decencies" should be accorded to others in their own lands ("diversity + proximity = war), ignoring the minor detail that simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns?

But some of what you say in it is ludicrous on its face:

I can go to a public restroom without fear of physical assault.

Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues.

I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name.

But your race, sex or sexual orientation? Haven't you noticed you're at a disadvantage here more and more? I mean, this was the theme of an episode of Archie Bunker which aired in the 1970s, the iconic scene was "Meathead" slamming a door so hard it broke the glass in it, very memorable.

Moving on:

On the other hand, if you claim special rights by virtue of skin color, gender, or religion

You're claiming a full on assault is "[t]he loss of a privileged position"; I guess at best we'll just have to agree to disagree, since it appears that simply asking for equal rights in the identity politics game, heck, even being allowed to play it, is beyond the pale for you, puts me in the basket of deplorables. But correct me if I'm wrong about that summation of your position.

> [...] simple facts always put women at a disadvantage in physical combat unless they effectively arm themselves. You are, I assume, in favor of legal concealed carry? Or have noted that women, and minority women, are doing it at ever greater rates, enough to significantly change gun design and production patterns?

As an aside, as someone who considers firearms ownership and possession basic human rights, I'm extremely happy about this development and have been doing everything in my power to assist - to the point that I've offered a standing invitation on my city's subreddit to take anyone who would like to learn about firearms and self-defense to the range at my own expense. It's "anecdata", but the people who have taken me up on this offer have been about as far from the "rural white male conservative" stereotype as one could imagine.

>> I can apply for a job without having my application thrown out on account of my name. >But your race, sex or sexual orientation?

This is an interesting point for me as well - I'm a 32-year-old white male named "Lyndsy". I've had a couple of hiring processes stop cold on me the moment the hiring manager saw me in person or on Skype. I have no doubt that it was because I'm a man, and they were hoping to hire a woman. I actually don't blame them for this - my own political views allow for discrimination based on any factor - but it has been interesting.

"Really? You must live some place special where no crime occurs in such venues."

Transgender people like me (those of us who can't pass for jack squat even if we had our own platoon of makeup artists) are targeted on a regular basis when we use public restrooms and changing rooms.

As for the Alt Right, their ideologies are old as hell and quite frankly idiotic. It's like debating orthodox Marxist-Leninists. They just trot out the same old arguments without regard to the history of their implementation (and failure). So, until the Alt Right comes up with something fresh (i.e. not a mere criticism of liberalism which every has done since the ideology sprang up) I'm not going to entertain their nonsense either.

About my only reply can be http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Although, just because an argument is old, doesn't mean it's wrong.... Can you really say "diversity + proximity = war" is wrong? With the very concrete example you give above???

"About my only reply can be http://www.pinkpistols.org/"

That doesn't work when it comes to states with even SYG laws. Especially if the judge sees the act of the use of force as endangerment of the public.

"Although, just because an argument is old, doesn't mean it's wrong.... Can you really say "diversity + proximity = war" is wrong? With the very concrete example you give above???"

Have you even studied the history of war? Like at all? Cause no one believes that mere differences in culture is the primary cassus belli for war in terms of history. The fact is it's majoratively been about resource acquisition; be it land or people. All other CBs for wars are purely subordinate to the acquisition of resources (ideologies don't fill bellies). And to say otherwise is firmly put your own head of your arse when it comes to the matter. So I'm not inclined to listen to the Alt Right jerks who think Crusader Kings 2 is an accurate portrayal of the Medieval Real Politik.

That doesn't work when it comes to states with even SYG laws.

Really??? Evidence, please, for I'm not aware of this being a serious problem, and this is one of my domains of semi-expertise. As in, nowadays with the changes in state laws I carry concealed almost every time I walk out the door, my state was not a SYG one, and wouldn't bother if that was futile. This of course includes when I go to public bathrooms.

As for "endangerment of the public", I've never heard of it being an issue when a gun was used responsibly and none but the perpetrators were seriously injured. But I have heard of the deaths of innocents being charged as felony murder, by the surviving perpetrators (it can, of course, go the other way, see that bit about responsibly).

Do you have any facts, any incidents to back these claims up, or do you have another reason to claim that effective self-defense is futile, even to the point where it's better to be carried by six instead of judged by twelve, to reverse the normal formulation of that saying?

And we're just going to have to agree to disagree on your last point, for I have been seriously studying war since the 1970s, and there are plenty of examples of ideological wars. Heck, on Hitler's part, WWII was not a war of necessity; yeah, he wanted more resources, but Germany was doing rather well as it was, and e.g. being cut off from British coal directly led to the invasion of the Soviet Union (let's invade Russia during the winter to take their food, what could possibly go wrong?; see The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy for the detail, if you can stomach them https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670038261/ Not finished, and not (yet) replaced after it was damaged by a tornado)). Nor, for that matter, was WWI primarily about that, although the resources of Alsace-Loraine were certainly an additional motivator. The French wanted revenge after they got skunked in the Franco-Prussian War, and they sure got their fill of it.

Heck, was Bush the son's 2nd Iraq War one of those? We didn't, you know, take their oil....

Your entire post has Dunning-Kruger all over it.

1. Google SYG cases and see how each state defers to judges. In Florida it's always up to a judge once a DA offers the case for examination. They can shoot it down on their own terms (heh). Other state SYGs are similar. Plus, many LGBT people don't live in SYG states. Minnesota has duty to retreat like the rest of us.

2. Again your examples are one driven by human desire for resources. Ideologies are the AAR of wars, not their progenitors. And to say otherwise is to be basically a complete moron.

And if you don't like my opinion, you can kindly go chat up someone else. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com