That’s why my buddy Mike Johnson and I use CovenentEyes ™ to protect us from all the hot gayness that just absolutely LEAPS out of the computer screens at us, too bad I can’t get an analogue version for all the books with hot gayness that tries to attack us!
edit: 1 downvote? I didn’t know my boi MJ was on lemmy! Yo whaddup ya fucking theocratic loon
I saw this on Facebook. The dumb typical reply was “the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn” or something else insane
The far-right accuses the LGBT+ community (and anyone who supports them) of being child predators because child predators are the last remaining group of people you can openly advocate violence against.
They want to say “lets kill all the gay people” but they need to maintain a shred of plausible deniability.
“the only people who say this are people who want to show children porn”
This is what you call “projection”. Normal people don’t think about that at all.
No, the only people that say this are people that don’t realize that anarchists and leftists in general (tankies are not leftists) support the right of the people to be armed, and also support your right to read books that you want to, as long as you don’t fuck with other people over their choices.
Guns don’t kill people, uh uh
I kill people, with guns
And I make people gay
With books?
With me
Can confirm.
Pow
Does somebody think that books make people gay?
Yes. Republicans are banning books left right and center that have LGBTQ content in them because they consider it “grooming” and “propaganda”.
No, it’s Adderall that makes you gay. Or am I just speaking for myself?
“everyone hot” made me bi. 🥲
I suggest we ban everyone.
I never hear that from anyone, much less from gun people in particular. I’m amazed that this sticker exists
It’s the motte and bailey fallacy. Take one hot issue, then downplay it as far as possible to make it seem the other side is nuts.
Some of these “banned” books have sexual content, from how to masturbate to the use of sex toys, etc. People take to reading them at school board meetings, YouTube on the street interviews, etc to point out how graphic they are. Should they be in a 3rd grade (age 8) or lower public school library? They aren’t banned from all stores. A parent that wishes to teach their kids these topics are free to buy them for the kids. How much should public schools cover in sex ed, and how young do you start? Those are questions we should discuss.
But no, they will just say these books teach that “gay people exist.” As if blow jobs and anal sex are for the gays only?
Here’s a list of my personal favorite books that were banned by Frisco school board in Texas:
1984 (allowed in hs) 20,000 leagues under the sea (allowed in ms) All of A Song of Ice and Fire (never allowed) The adventures of Tom Sawyer (allowed in ms) American gods (never allowed) Brown v board of education: a fight for justice (allowed in ms) Fahrenheit 451 (allowed in hs) Jane Eyre (allowed in hs) MLK: journey of a king (allowed in ms) Pride and prejudice (allowed in hs) Queer: the ultimate LGBTQ guide for teens (never allowed) this might be my absolute favorite because there’s no claim of obscene content. The reason for banning is “does not align with curriculum”. The fellowship of the ring (allowed in ms) The hobbit (allowed in ms) The lovely bones (never allowed) The other two LOTR books (allowed in ms) Trans mission: my quest to a beard (never allowed) also no claim of sexual content, “does not align with curriculum”
The full list of books banned in Frisco can be found here: https://www.friscoisd.org/departments/library-media-services/library-collection-review-project/materials-removed
For a full list of every book banned in a Texas school district: https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/list-of-texas-banned-books-shows-state-has-most-in-us-17480532
I think that I’ve made my point, but I do want to also make mention of the fact that this does not affect children who have parents that are wealthy enough to buy them books or those who have enough time to take their kids to the public library. This targets exclusively under privileged students, and those who do not want their parents to know that they are reading LGBTQ literature.
Also because I assume somebody is going to claim this is cherry picking, I just googled “bookes banned in Texas 2023 list”, and chose Frisco because it was the first one with such a long list.
This is the completely rational discussion that is entirely appropriate to be having.
However, this is decidedly not the discussion being had.
The voices making the rational arguments are either completely outnumbered, or intentionally squelched by corporate news because rational discussions do not sell adverts.
Personally, I’ll always take the side of “burning books is bad.”
If the target audience could read, they d be very upset
At least that’ll keep them safe from being turned gay.
I know a gay person who can read. It checks out.
Remember, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gay is a good guy with a gay
Hi I’m gay, where are the bad boys?
Books don’t gay people. Gay people gay people.
Did I do it right?
The only way to stop a bad gay with a book, is a good gay with a book
The second amendment clearly states that the “right of people to keep and read gay books shall not be infringed”
Books didn’t make me gay, it was those stupid sexy men with their penises.
Guns don’t kill people, books kill people.
I am proud to be pro gun and pro lgbtq+ ✊Sorry if you’re being sarcastic, but why then do the workers with the guns have the least rights?
What rights do you think we don’t have in the USA? I can do whatever I want, and I do every day in the USA.
Being from a very rural area: guns are tools. They provide self defense against wildlife and crazy humans when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage, they are pest control, and they are a humane way of euthanasia when a farm animal is suffering.
And like most other tools, such as drills, post hole augers, machine lathes, tractors, cars, etc… they can maim and kill indiscriminately when used incorrectly or maliciously. But you cannot simply ban or remove the tool from everywhere because it is still serves a very important purpose. Can they be more controlled, education made mandatory, more stringent confiscation rules in the case of people with mental illness? Yes, and probably should. But you will never eliminate the firearm completely.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
The NZ gun laws are largely based on this idea, at least in terms of being a tool for use against animals, less so personal defense against other people.
The implication of this is that some types of gun have few/no practical use as a tool other than for personal defense/offense.
Rifles and shotguns are useful for hunting. Fully automatic & select fire weapons are not, or are at least excessive. They’re only useful if you intend to attack people.
Same goes for handguns.
Another sane approach by NZ.
Handguns are excellent for self defense especially while hiking. My sister wouldn’t be here today if she didn’t carry a .45 everywhere when outdoors. Not all of us live in places where humans have exterminated the dangerous wildlife
Do you think we don’t have guns outside of USA??? I don’t think your point is very well measured if you think rural population in Canada do not have guns. Also, books are tools too.
when you’re miles outside of law enforcement coverage,
See, this might be the problem. Now I know America is a big place, But you can drone strike a wedding anywhere on the planet, it feels like your nation should have the ability to enforce it’s laws on it’s own ground without having to rely on individuals wielding firearms. And it’s not like there is a shortage of police funding. They just don’t care about your area in particular. Other places the polices get’s to drive literal tanks/apcs.
The issue here is that it is perceived as a right and not a privilege.
Because of that, anything restricting that “right” at all is perceived as an infringement on the personality of the gun user.
With cars most people are on board with the concept that being caught while DUI leads to a ban on driving.
The same is not true for people handling guns while drunk or in an irresponsible way.
It’s also totally understood by people that there are areas where you don’t drive (e.g. inside a shopping mall). Again, the same is not true with guns.
And that’s the issue here.
The “right” needs to be made into a privilege that is allowed under certain circumstances (e.g. if you need it for work or live in a very remote area). This does not contradict with banning guns in cities, schools, towns or other areas where guns serve no positive purpose.
Your use case is valid, but also many gun owners aren’t in your situation.
What I always find hilarious is that the people who claim to be very well versed in firearms safety are the ones who oppose the idea of making people get a license to use one. They’ll tell you that you shouldn’t even talk about gun laws unless you can tell a .45 from a 9 mm in the dark, but feel that anyone, no matter how drunk or crazy, should be able to buy a gun.
So I guess you’re in favor of getting those “crazy humans” the help they need to stop being crazy, and to only allow guns with special permits for things like farm work, hunting and shooting ranges, right?
Because it’s a bit of a straw man argument otherwise. People using guns responsibility for their work is not the problem.
I am prepared to recieve the hate and downvotes for providing a measured, reasonable response.
You didn’t so much provide a measured reasonable response as you compared actual labor saving tools to a machine designed specifically to kill/maim. Then you patted yourself on the back for being brave enough to make such a comparison while preemptively disregarding any discussions to the contrary.
And this class, is a good example of a dumb argument.
About as dumb as yours, considering you haven’t bothered to comment anything in opposition besides name calling.
Oh I learned LONG ago not to waste my time in futile discussions with people that base their entire argument on opinionated rhetoric.
Pot, kettle, black.
I consider my take reasonable, and if you can’t understand the nuance of someone who’s been raised with a significantly different life experience than your own, then that’s on you. Have a nice rest of your day.
Your anecdotal examples are irrelevant when compared against facts. But you do you kiddo. I just sincerely hope that comparing your own personal experiences agains the real world doesn’t bite you in the ass later on when you’ve grown up.
I’m going to go ahead and block you from this point forward as I don’t see someone like you commenting or posting anything worth reading down the line.
Best of luck though. You’ll need it.
“Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword.”
Republicans are really going back in time for their policies.
You lost me there. The penis what?
penis mightier than the sword
Title of my sex tape.
I hope you don’t use a sword for the same purpouse as a penis.
The word vagina is derived from the Latin word for “sheath” so…
People kill people and you’ve a genetic predisposition towards the sexuality you grow into, it’s a nurture influences nature situation (i.e. how one is raised) that impacts what alleles become active or recessive and that impacts your sexuality (among a wide array of other things, physiological and psychological).
Just because one group of people can’t live within reality doesn’t mean you need to be as equally moronic to ‘prove a point’, especially when the point being presented as ‘equal’ is unabashedly fatuous.
Alleles becoming dominant or recessive based on upbringing? My brother, what publications have you been reading?
The heritability of sexuality is not a scientifically defensible claim at this point—let alone the other claims you just made.
If you read what I actually wrote down allele expression is INFLUENCED by the environment, regardless of what people want to think or want to believe the research supports the hypothesis that sexual identity is not simply a matter of genetic influence nor of just upbringing but a combination thereof.
At no point was heritability mentioned or posited.
Please read what people write and if you don’t understand what is being said you should ask questions instead of exhibiting a clearly sciolist position.
Here’s a couple of current research papers to get you started: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033347/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
And here’s research on genetic expression and how the environment can impact such expression:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248887/
Once again, and to be extremely clear, heritability is not mentioned nor even involved in this discussion.
No idea what I just read but it sounds cringe and has loads of downvotes so I’m afraid I’ll have to downvote you, too
You’re reading into this too much. We’re here to talk about the logical inconsistencies in conservative identity politics. You’re here to have some kind of pedantic debate.
Not everyone who says “guns don’t kill people” is a conservative. I say it, and I’m pretty far from conservative. Go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Oh, no, I’m most assuredly not here to debate.
I stated facts, not opinions.
deleted by creator
Who is “sure”?
Gun nut here, and I absolutely don’t think a book can make you gay, nor do I know a single person that’s actually that ignorant. So no, not checkmate.
Don’t know any Moms for Liberty?
Hopefully you’re referring to the actual Moms for Liberty, and not the spinoff of a fake Nazi group that’s meant to appear to be them.
Hey bud, sorry to break it to you but that ain’t how the internet works
Can I live where you live? A lot of people where I live are this ignorant.
You seem to smart to be a gun nut (just saying). Maybe you’re one of the few I would actually trust to own a gun and never misuse it. That is a very small percentage of folks on this planet.
See, but that’s just the problem right there. Why are you correlating being a gun but with intelligence? The answer is because one side of the argument sets out to do exactly that. Tens of millions of gun owners are highly educated college graduates, doctors, lawyers, and of course normal people. The image of some trailer living uneducated middle school redneck that has a bunch of guns is a punchline used by people that hate guns for no reason other than their own lack of knowledge on the subject. Same people that think an AR-15 is what the military is using, or that “assault weapons” are a thing and don’t realize its a political term that refers to jokes of festures that in no way makes a rifle more deadly. Its insane. People are way to quick to take info from biased sources, and assume that vocal minoirties on both sides are a representation of the masses. They’re not.
I don’t, believe me. I do not correlate being a gun nut with intelligence, I’m only saying in this one case this guy is smart enough to see through some of the fakery the right wing nuts are trying to foist on this country. I’m as anti-gun as anybody could be, I’d sooner have a rabid hyena running loose in my house than EVER own a gun, I even campaigned to have a neighbor’s gun taken away as he would often wear it and wave it around. I think guns are horrible, and that there is something wrong with anyone who is attracted to them.
Ar-15 rifle or any other weapon - there should be no reason any intelligent person would ever want to be around one. They are only designed to cause death in the most painful and gory way. That’s all they are for. There is no other purpose to a gun.
So people who find that attractive are telling me they are batshit insane and willing to kill someone, and have no attack of conscience about it at all. And that truly is horrifying beyond the ability of the human language to express in mere words.
I think guns are horrible, and that there is something wrong with anyone who is attracted to them.
Ther’s that incredible bias at play again…
Ar-15 rifle or any other weapon - there should be no reason any intelligent person would ever want to be around one. They are only designed to cause death in the most painful and gory way. That’s all they are for. There is no other purpose to a gun.
So the hundreds of millions of rounds into targets, hunting, sport, clay shooting don’t have a purpose? That’s a non-debatable fail.
So people who find that attractive are telling me they are batshit insane and willing to kill someone, and have no attack of conscience about it at all.
So your answer to all the millions that own guns their whole lives and have never killed anybody? Who are you to speak of what’s on another persons’ conscience? Sorry pal, the only one that’s batshit insane here is you. You’re totally off the handle with overly dramatic delusions.
Owning a gun is horrible and people who want them are horrible. I have nothing more to say about this at all. What you think is not of any interest to me.
Which you don’t know, and can’t back. You have zero idea how people are, just more talking out of your ass. What’s great is that you’re statiscally surrounded by people with guns everywhere you go. gun ownership in the US has been climbing at record speeds in all states since Obama. I hope your side is proud, because you’re the ones to did that! Thanks!
Sounds good to me.
Gun laws give control of guns to the government. The government is not made up of people better than us, arguably the government is comprised of the worst of us, specifically the least empathetic, most greedy, and most power hungry.
Guns are tools, tools don’t do things on their own. Of course fewer guns means fewer people killed by guns, the same way fewer saws mean fewer boards cut by saws. But if cutting boards is a goal, new methods will be found. If accidental board sawing is a problem, don’t ban saws, be more careful.
It’s the community’s job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state’s. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools? Because guns are actively deadly and used to kill people. In the 1700s, that would have had a different societal context, as the colonies were tumultuous and had a rocky relationship not only with Britain but with each other. But in the 2020s, they’re just used to commit murder. You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children. Rights are a man made invention and aren’t actually real. “Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem” is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.
When the government gives up its guns, I’ll give up mine. Not before.
Taking away guns does nothing for the anger people have when they want to kill another. They will just resort to other lethal tools.
What you hear about, comes from what you’re listening to. Traditional news doesn’t cover many defensive uses because it doesn’t generate as many views as a mass shooting. “If it bleeds, it leads” has been the motto of news organizations for decades. Look to other spaces and you’ll hear stories of people defending their home, business, etc. Colion Noir on YouTube has done some really interesting interviews with people doing that in the last couple of weeks. The FBI stats had something like 3-5 million defensive gun uses a year in the US. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away
Ban guns and who is left with them? The government and criminals. Do you trust them for all eternity?
If a gun is a tool, why is there no right to bear tools
I’d say two reasons – one, because there are no organized successful efforts to ban tools like saws and hammers. And the other is that saws are not a fundamental means of personal protection.
But in the 2020s, they’re just used to commit murder.
Guns are used for protection of homes, for sport, for hunting for food, and some people just thing they’re really cool.
You rarely ever hear about the so-called “good guy with a gun” and you hear a hell of a lot about entire classrooms of slain children.
You hear what is profitable to show you. You’re not hearing about a great many smaller events involving guns.
“Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem” is a sentence you made up and could easily be debated.
Just taking your argument a bit further, if you’re ok with this, do you think a dictator is OK so long as they keep you safe? Why or why not?
Why is it so important to have the rights to have guns? Have you seen any country got destroyed because the people aren’t allowed to have guns?
Because, as a country that already has so many guns, it’s not so simple to just say, “fuck it, no more guns”. Just three days ago my neighbor lost his marbles and decided to shoot up his apartment at 2am. I share a wall with this psycho.
The cops didn’t even bother to come out even though I had video proof of the incident.
I own a weapon for this exact reason. I have a family to protect and if I can’t even depend on the resources that are supposed to be there to protect us from this, then I will continue to own a weapon.
I lived in Japan for almost a decade, guns are almost non-existent there. It was awesome.
I wish it could be like that here in the US but there would need to be a radical shift in public perception of the police and each other for that to ever happen.
Edit: corrected spelling from weapoon to weapon lol.
You just said it how awesome it is to live in a country without guns… something has to be done. Stricter gun control is a step in the right way. Like you’ve said, it will need a long time to correct that. Years, even decades. But if nothing is changed, it will stay like that forever.
I absolutely agree. Mental evaluations or other processes or restrictions would be welcomed. I by no means feel that we should just leave things exactly as they are. However too many people just scream about banning weapons with no forethought into the subject.
Because guns are one of if not the most effective way to protect oneself when other measures have already failed. I want to be free, have freedom, that means the freedom to posses an effective way to protect myself.
An elevated murder rate isn’t a problem of guns, it’s a societal ill. If you’re sick and vomiting, the solution isn’t to plug your mouth.
Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children. Also, how does owning a gun protect you? The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.
Logical fallacy. Me vomiting doesnt kill classrooms full of children.
I assumed you were familiar with concepts of analogies and models, my mistake.
Also, how does owning a gun protect you?
Is your imagination really that poor? I’m a trans woman so I want to protect myself from potential crazy neighbors that think I caused all their problems. I lived alone, I like to not be completely helpless against an invader.
The studies have been done. People who own guns are far more likely to kill themselves and their family than they are to kill an attacker.
Other people’s carelessness should not be a reason to take my rights to protect myself.
Cars kill many people too should we ban those?
It’s the community’s job to keep guns from dangerous people (like people who would be cops), not the state’s. Giving up rights is never the answer to any problem.
Wait hold on can you go more in depth about what you mean by this? It’s sounding like if I think someone is dangerous I should go and take their guns.
No, and I probably used the wrong wording.
I said “It’s the community’s job to keep guns from dangerous people”, I don’t actually think it’s possible to completely keep guns from dangerous people and who is considered dangerous is very subjective.
What I was trying to say is that any state level efforts are going to cause more problems than they solve. So maybe the way to prevent little Johnny from shooting up his school isn’t strict laws that disarm a population, but rather identifying and fixing the community and family issues that brought Johnny to a place where he thought shooting up his school was the best course of action.
You know one thing I think would have a huge effect on this? Making lying and stoking fear for profit and calling yourself “news” illegal. Fox News damaging families and stoking flames is a much bigger problem then gun quantity.
Why is the #1 cause of death for children in the US firearms then? Countries with stricter gun control don’t have these issues.
It’s true tools don’t do things on their own. Cars don’t run over people on their own, baseball bats don’t bash people’s heads in on their own. But the big difference between those tools and a gun are, those tools are not DESIGNED to be lethal or used as weapons against other humans.
And I’d point out, people have survived stabbings and car accidents - most never survive being shot by a gun.
People misuse inanimate objects, and sometimes death results. People weaponize knives, guns, bats, folding chairs etc etc - they drive under the influence, they don’t buckle up, they text on their phones and thus thousands of people get killed by careless drivers every year.
And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS??? Can you not see how ridiculous and asking for trouble such a scenario is going to be? It’s everyone’s job to keep guns out of human’s hands - cops being the exception. And we can only do that with good gun control laws, which are (as I’ve illustrated above) both vital and necessary to our survival as a species.
And you want people like that - temperamental uncaring and who misuse NON-lethal items to kill people, to have GUNS???
I don’t want anyone to have guns per se, I just think attempts to restrict them, especially in the U.S. just means only the real bad people will have them. I’m looking for realistic solutions to actual problems, not reactions to tragic events.
Well that’s the issue. We need to be going after everyone who owns a gun and going a thorough evaluation of their mental health and past history. We need to make it a felony offense to own a gun if you have any sort of criminal history - I agree we need to get guns out of the hands of all bad people for good.
This sounds like sarcasm based on a misunderstanding of my comment, if not you misunderstood significantly.
No it isn’t sarcasm at all, I’m 100 percent serious. And I’ve even had many neighbors express my same point of view so I know I’m not alone nor am I from Mars nor am I delusional. My opinions and self worth don’t depend on anyone else’s retorts.
