383
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Stern@lemmy.world 128 points 5 months ago

“So guys getting blown up in trenches in Ukraine by drones? Ha, totally not age-restricted,” the creator said. “ Me firing a 3D printed pink glock that I made? Age-restricted. We don’t need kids watching that. We want kids watching people getting blown up by mines. Love it. Awesome.”

Guys missing the corpo bottom line.

Gun manufacturers have gotten sued by families of school shooting victims. Youtube runs the risk of getting dragged into court because little Billy sees the 3D printed pink glock, decides that he can make that, that its time to fuck up some bullies, and then after that those bullies parents shoot lawyers in every direction (which includes Youtube, even if the odds of getting anything are minimal) like mushroom spores. That risk assessment doesn't exist for Ukraine war vids.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 5 months ago

More generally "gun control" is never about controlling the cops, military, MIC, etc. There's bi-partisan support for the state maintaining its monopoly on violence.

[-] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 4 points 5 months ago

Of course the state wants to maintain its monopoly on violence. That's what states do.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago

There’s bi-partisan support for the state maintaining its monopoly on violence.

as if this is a bad thing.

oh, sorry, were you still dreaming of starting a civil war with you widdle rifles against, I DUNNO, ARMOR DIVISIONS AND AIR FORCES AND CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

because that seems pitifully stupid.

[-] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

It is if that's how you think about it. But over time the thinking behind that has changed. Because these types of people are.in our military and they think most military members think like them. By proxy that means they'd be on the side of the "militia".

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago

By proxy that means they’d be on the side of the “militia”.

Nope. Regardless of your delusions of boogaloo, those people serving in the mil TOOK A FUCKING OATH.

It probably doesn't mean shit to you, I mean, obviously, but it should matter to them. They voluntarily took an oath to defend the constitution of the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. I know, I took that oath, and no one said "oh but if you want civil war there's an exception" - because there isn't.

Traitorous fucks will happen, and they'll face the consequences.

[-] atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I was in the military. I took the oath. What I'm saying is, if you don't think there are MAGAT idiots in the military (a lot of them), please understand they did a threat assessment of military members while Donald Trump was running for President the first time, and decided to make a military wide training specifically to educate us about that oath and remind us who what we took it to defend. So yes. I absolutely do know some people who are all for militia fighting the government who are still military members.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Traitorous fucks will happen, and they’ll face the consequences.

then you're violating your oath by aiding them. AND YOU ARE AIDING THEM BY NOT TURNING THEM IN IF THEY'RE ACTUAL SEDITIOUS GARBAGE.

Why are you aiding seditious garbage? I thought you took your oath seriously.

[-] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I don't think you understand just how prevalent this situation is, or just what they would need to do for me to "turn them in" for basically being on the wrong side of the political fence. For one, you're assuming the person or persons in charge doesn't feel the same way (chain of command isn't the kind of thing you just skip because some of them happen to be suspect). Second, they actually have to do something against the UCMJ for me to "turn them in". Thinking that the government should be overthrown in the event that it over steps is constitutional. Thinking you could overturn a free and legal public election is not constitutional, but it's also not against the rules.

You can't turn people in for thinking. Only for acting. You're kind of coming off as a troll and I'm done with you following me through the thread.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Thinking that the government should be overthrown in the event that it over steps is constitutional. Thinking you could overturn a free and legal public election is not constitutional,

preparing for and accelerating the boogaloo is not.

get your head on straight. done with this convo.

load more comments (26 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
383 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

59670 readers
2266 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS