Yeah, it didn't make sense. "To do rally but it's not a rally vehicle" to which I was confirming that rally is a specific thing and a crosstrek isn't suited for it.
Dude if you put rally suspension on its a rally vehicle. I don't get your point. A wrx isn't a rally vehicle without rally suspension either.
No vehicle is a rally vehicle until you decide to make it one. No truck is a rally truck until you put rally suspension etc on it. You are making it sound like only a wrx is a rally vehicle.
No, there are plenty of other rally vehicles, but a crosstrek isn't one. You also realize that WRX stands for World Rally eXperimental. I also am not sure you know what rally racing is, I feel like you just think it's a fun word for "off-road" but there are also tarmac stages where you don't need ground clearance. The WRX is literally a road version of a rally car, the crosstrek is a CUV with ground clearance, that is literally just the point I was making. Either way rally doesn't mean off-road, it is a specific type of racing that sometimes goes off-road, but is actually on roads the vast majority of the time, just not always paved.
I have no idea what you're arguing over, all I said was that a crosstrek isn't the car that comes to mind when you say "putting rally parts on my subaru" to anyone who actually knows what rally is. It's like saying "I got drag slicks for my Pontiac" and having someone ask "aw nice, is it an aztek?" The WRX is literally named after and intended to be a consumer version of a WRC car, a crosstrek is meant for someone that thinks they might drive into a field to go to a concert once in the whole 6 years of owning it.
that's how the IDF gets people to accept their war crimes, they have a division of cute women posting photos on social media (this was an actual problem they had a while ago)
They're not the same, but they're kind of the same personality type. They frequently care about the same things, they just want very aggressive change to fix them. The issue is the path to get there and those are wildly different in terms of what the problem is and the underlying world view.
this was a struggle but ran it through a word processor, its a great quote and when most of the world have failed to stand by, many have also forgotten or never knew. sadly guns now have a political agenda strapped to them and i wish they didn't
spoiler
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
Yeah I'm becoming increasingly nervous with the blue states systematically trying to disarm everyone and the red states are trying to whip everyone into a traitorous frenzy over the dumbest shit while arming everyone with a pulse.
Otoh, and this probably sounds absolutely fucking nuts, I've found republicans tend to understand "strength" and they are strangely respectful of liberal and leftist gun owners because that's a dynamic they can comprehend. It's not a good state of affairs but it's better than them believing they can just run things because they're the only ones with "strength"
A militia made of a bunch of greasy brainwashed boomers would be put down in a couple days at most, even if it consisted of the entire population of republicans.
They won't be a regular army doing regular army stuff like taking land and stuff. They would be like the Taliban. How did that go again for the US? The Troubles were no picnic, look it up.
It would be an insane mistake to underestimate that group. Like the other comments said, they are the Taliban and the military/police. However even if they somehow weren't, it still means we have potentially tens of millions of domestic terrorists running around armed to the teeth and that's not a great feeling.
Would you really be down with dipshits like the proud boys and 3%ers acting like brownshirts and pulling a modern day krystallnacht? They already did a thing pretty damn close to the Reichstag Fire back in the beginning of 2021, and that crowd was not, shall we say, our best and brightest. You don’t have to be smart to be a thug.
Because American media keeps pushing the idea that the Democrats are "the left" and because Democrats oppose guns because the Republicans promote them, they equate owning a gun with being a part of "the right".
Democrats don't oppose guns. Democrats are for base-level gun control. Republicans are insane, NRA-supporting fools who would rather 5 year old children get massacred weekly instead of have any potential gun controls.
Really? Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with, you know, actually keeping kids safe. No, that actually makes sense, and even worse, isn't about "me"!
For the record, even if there's anything to your absurd statement, I'm all for gun control. I care more about kids' lives than yours.
You’re not making a very good case. Historically speaking, American gun laws have universally been about disarmament as opposed to harm reduction.
If, for example, the awb had included free publicly accessible classes on gun safety and massive funding for mental health services then you’d be able to make the connection between gun control laws and an effort to lower child mortality.
R always deflect to mental health. But Reagan dismantled our mental health infrastructure, and R consistently votes against spending in that area. (Probably because they won't ever seem to vote for anything that helps people, only for taking things from people.)
So R needs to support gun control, OR support funding mental health services, OR come clean and admit that school shootings are a price they are willing to pay as long as they get to keep their weapons and do as they will with them.
(They did like the mulford act, but we all know what that was really about. The one thing more important that guns to that crowd.)
It’s always one political party’s fault, never the clear result of what a system of government was designed to do.
The nfa was bipartisan, gca was bipartisan, fopa was bipartisan, the Brady bill was bipartisan.
The majority of child gun deaths are accidental or suicide.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
If the point was ever to reduce child deaths from firearms then the gun control legislation would have mental health funding and safety education funding attached.
First, I don't how that could be your response to my comment about the current state of mental health. So R is magically going to vote for two things they never (in recent history - say since school shootings became the big issue they are now - or even say since death by gun became the top cause of childhood death) vote for as long as we put those things together?
It seems kind of ridiculous to argue here over the content of the regulations when there is literally no possibility that half of our legislature will vote for it anyhow.
At some point you gotta look at two hundred years of extremely well documented history and recognize this system is working as intended.
Hmm. Yep, everything stemming from our system of government is just peachy. We don't still have problems rippling through our culture due to slavery and civil rights issues, one political party that has sold their soul to Trump and his cronies (oh and let's not forget how they've welcomed the white supremacists into their midst) and is just itching for an excuse to go full secession, unsustainable wealth inequality, a large percentage of families living paycheck to paycheck, a healthcare system that routinely makes people choose between paying for food and shelter or healthcare and medicine and etc etc etc.
Clearly with two hundred years of extremely well documented history of all these problems and our ineptitude and lack of will to solve many of them, we should conclude that the system is working as intended.
I don’t think you’re giving our congresspeople enough credit. Neither half of our legislature would vote a bill containing gun safety education and mental health services into law. Their aim with gun control laws is not to prevent child death from firearms.
I disagree that it’s just peachy that we live in the prototype fascist state, still going strong, but the rest of what you said is true.
I certainly didn't think I'd ever be Daffy Duck in the "wabbit season/duck season" gag, but here we are. While I (now) understand the point you are trying to make, I do not agree that this is the future envisioned by those who created our nation and system of government, and thus I must disagree that this is functioning as intended.
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay to prevent the government from massacring civilians like they did in Myanmar recently.
If we really want a gun-free society we need to make sure the government doesn’t have guns. Given that’s impossible, the next best thing is letting citizens have guns.
I hope you at least vote for candidates who support mental health initiatives. (Though that would rule out Republicans.)
But anyway hey, at least you are honest. (Kinda. Aside from assuming I'm pushing for gun-free just because I wish republicans would even talk about gun control.)
I see mass shootings and individual murder the price we pay
It's the price the victims pay. You see that price, that those dead people have paid, as something that you are willing for them to pay. Let's not mince words. It's your value judgement that it's worth it for them to have died. I wonder if they and their families felt it was.
Also far right conservative men are given all the permission in the world to threaten violence whereas many groups of people on the left, and leftism in general are defined by conservatives as inherently dangerous which both makes it practically much more dangerous to own guns and carry them (because you will just got shot by a cop and the cop won't even get in trouble they can just say "they looked dangerous") and also makes a culture of responsible gun ownership way harder to grow because the societal conditions around it are aggressively hostile to leftwing people owning guns.
Listen to the way centrists talk about the threat of violence from the far left and far right in the US, of course there are shitty, dangerous people on the left, but to compare the two as if there were similar amounts of violence coming from both is a ridiculous misstatement of reality.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don't ask what your political lean is...if they want to shot you they will. Being a responsible gun owner also has nothing to do with politics, get strapped and keep the 4 rules in mind. There are a ton of us on the left who own guns and more and more are arming themselves on the left.
Whats funny is I keep hearing about bots and operatives on Lemmy that go around promoting things that arent the status quo like we are the next social media. And the kind of people saying it thinks everyone needs to stick to a party line or else! Like or else what? If I do not love every thing Big Dem is pushing, I am a Russian shill bot trying to destroy America. The downvotes you have are from people barely able to form thoughts past doing what they are told.
The fuck are you talking about, cops don’t ask what your political lean is…
As someone who noticed the difference between how police treated BLM protestors vs Jan 06 insurrectionists I think it's pretty clear that if they do have an inkling of your leanings it's gonna make a difference, at least in preconceived notions as they enter into their interaction with you, and how aggressively they come at you in the first place.
Depending on what you are implying regarding which was which, I have a hunch we aren't going to agree on that detail, and I'm doubtful either will change the others mind, so I'm just going to cut this off here.
Edited because my original wording was nearly gibberish.
I'm saying the insurrectionists were armed, as well as the idiot protestors outside of many State Capitol buildings, and so the cops are a lot more apprehensive about harassing or confronting them than they were towards BLM protestors. There was a lot more at play on January 6th than just being armed though, including ideological alignment, and support from high level politicians.
Yeah - in non US places gun ownership only means one thing: you own a gun. It says nothing about your politics. And yes, US democrats being referred to as “left” is ridiculous. The Democrat party wouldn’t even be a centrist party in most (western) democracies.
Pepsi - the choice of a new generation… of woke, pronoun-shifting libtards. As an aside I like your spelling. It’s reminded me to listen to Ice Cube’s Amerikkka’s Most Wanted again.
Are you familiar with sarcasm / irony / satire? I’m quoting and subsequently mangling a slogan from 1985. (c. Forty years ago) Surely you haven’t taken that comment at face value?
Believe it or not, there are plenty of Democrat and Republican gun owners alike who view gun ownership the same as you do, and don't make it their entire identity, political or otherwise. We just don't get constantly exposed to that reality, because it doesn't make for interesting headlines, or divisive online debate.
Good. I’m glad. I had my suspicions that was the case but it’s nice to have it confirmed by an insider. I always struggled to believe that an entire nation of so many millions of people would have a one size fits all pro/anti stance on any one topic; it’d be absurd.
Suppose you get falsely charged by the state because of your politics, what are you going to do? Get into armed conflict against the police officers coming to arrest you?
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king's palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it's apparently it's 19th century now.
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family
Sounds good
thus establish a military goverment.
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it's just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it's not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
you are by definition a new military
No, I am a member of one of many militias
all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
Yes. Thats how war works.
both technologies and situations are different now
It's not like armed insurgencies don't happen in modern countries. Look up the IRA. Even if you are not keen on blowing up billionaires, you can still shoot meal team six as they try to bring back lynching and the KKK.
That said, disarming the country including the police, especially the police, would be more conductive to a peaceful life. So would actual democratic representation.
Absolutely not, I'm all for defunding the police but if your idea of a peaceful country doesn't involve someone owning and being willing to defend themselves with firearms you're just living in a fantasy where crime just magically doesn't exist.
perhaps at the federal level, but California and Washington liberals have passed sweeping gun control laws that severely impinge on law abiding citizens, and the AFT under Biden criminalized brace pistols, turning millions of law abiding citizens into criminals overnight. Only a SC ruling kept them from pursuing arrest for people who legally purchased their firearms, including a full background check for their purchases.
When people are discussing American politics and Democrats and Republicans, they most certainly mean liberal Democrats when they say "the left". The accuracy of that statement doesn't change the intent.
I love Angela Davis. I really need to learn more about her. I saw this video posted somewhere during 2020, and for folks who can resist the urge to impatiently skip past what she's setting up in the beginning, the payoff at the end of her response to the banal question of whether she supports violence for her cause is (IMO) exceptionally powerful.
It's actually kinda short, but the first time I watched it I think I didn't expect what she describes at the beginning to play so directly into her final words, nor to be so very personal at one tragic point. I think I was kinda going "OK I know awful things were happening back then" I'm embarrassed to say. Once realizing that she was putting all that together for a specific purpose, I had to go back and watch it word for word - so I could have been projecting my own general impatience with video clips onto others. :)
You're being downvoted because people people think you're being obtuse, but, as a person that overuses logical thinking to a diagnosable degree, my suspicion is that you're doing that. Also because your tone is kind of...not good.
The whole point of the Serenity Prayer ("accept the things I cannot change") is that it includes "change the things I can" -- so the things Davis is changing are things she CAN change, by definition.
But her point is that she is reframing what she believes she can and cannot change. Recategorizing, if you will.
She's invoking the third part of the Serenity Prayer: the wisdom to know the difference. As we grow and learn, our wisdom increases, so the things that belong in the first two categories will shift.
Things that used to be things that can't be changed are becoming things that she can.
To understand the quote, you just have to give it some space to breathe, and not be so logical about it.
There is a common prayer called the serenity prayer that includes a line about accepting the things you cannot change. The idea being it's not worth stressing out over aspects of your life that you have no control over and to instead focus on what you can do something about.
She is playing off that by saying she's no longer going to accept those things and is now going to fight to change them. I'm not familiar with her but presumably this would be regarding fighting injustices in the world.
Here is the full prayer (or at least the version I'm most familiar with):
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.
I wouldn't describe it as a reversal, the actual serenity prayer as stated already has the "courage to change the things I can," so anything that is within the speaker's ability to change should already be covered. And the last part, the wisdom to know the difference, already asks to have the ability to discern the two categories, and seeks to avoid accepting the things that can be changed.
It's clever, but doesn't actually say anything the serenity prayer itself doesn't already say.
In 1970, guns belonging to Davis were used in an armed takeover of a courtroom in Marin County, California, in which four people were killed. Prosecuted for three capital felonies—including conspiracy to murder—she was held in jail for over a year before being acquitted of all charges in 1972.
