264
Are G.O.P. Voters Tiring of the War on ‘Wokeness’?
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
264 points (96.2% liked)
News
23267 readers
3327 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can you get tired of something you don't under and can't define, even though for it's pretty easy to understand and define for a normal person?
They're just getting tried of hearing DeSantis say it 800 times a minute. And he can't even define it.
Can you define Assault Weapon?
That is such a stupid whatabout. Even if you can't get a universal definition for "assault weapon" you can at least get as far as "rifle that kills people." With "woke" we have... "this offends me or makes me feel icky."
Any rifle can kill people.
Are you suggesting that when people talk about restrictions on assault rifles that the restrictions should apply to all rifles, and that the term "assault" is completely superfluous?
Not trying to be antagonistic, but when you start talking about restrictions and regulations, definitions matter.
And having a discussion about terms you can't, or aren't willing to clarify and be specific about seems like a bad faith position. Or at least an indefensible one. Like saying we should lock up "bad people" but refusing to get specific on what constitutes "bad".
Unfortunately, "assault rifle" is a term without a specific, clear definition, so when people suggest it as a distinction between weapons they want to regulate/outlaw/criminalize and weapons they don't... it's only natural that the next logical question is for a concrete definition, if only to establish a starting point for a reasonable discussion and establishing common ground.
Getting frustrated at someone for asking for clarification of a term being invoked as a key determining factor of a proposed law just makes it that much harder to have a conversation about it.
What are you even talking about? I'm talking about the fact that there's a clearer definition for 'assault rifle' than there is for 'woke.' You know, the subject of this thread?
Except that despite your belief, if anything, your lack of ability/willingness to actually clearly and unambiguously define "assault rifle" indicates the opposite of your assertion.
The people who use the term "assault rifle" are unanimously using it to mean a gun that can shoot more people than you'd be able to with a hunting rifle, handgun, or shotgun in a short span of time
That's specifically what they're against
"Woke" is a grab bag of personal grievances that is meaningless other than the only universal common thread being "democrats are for it"
Sure, I'll do that as soon as you unambiguously define 'woke' as Conservatives use it. Good luck with that one.
I never claimed to try to.
I'm not defending conservatives here, no matter how much you may think otherwise; just pointing out that this assault rifle comparison is equally ambiguous and nonsensical.
And I pointed out how it is not equal. Which you have repeatedly ignored. Why?
I thought we were talking about defining terms? How is asking to define a term whataboutism?
Any rifle that's ever killed an individual is an assault weapon? That's why non-crazies think the push against AW's are stupid, because you just say dumb shit like that
I never even implied such a thing. You are being highly disingenuous by saying so. The suggestion was that it was a subset of rifle, which is more definition than you can give for "woke."
Was this what you said?
Oh for fuck's sake, I apparently left out an indefinite article. "A rifle that kills people." Happy?
If my .22 kills someone, should every .22 be considered an assault rifle?
You aren't clarifying anything. If you have an argument state it, stop pussy footing around.
Do you not understand what a subset is or are you just going to continue to accuse me of saying every rifle is an assault rifle when I already told you that's not what I said? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't ignorant, just dishonest. I would request that you stop being so now. Alternatively, I can just block you.
Then tell me what the fuck you're saying dude. You've just found yourself in a losing position and are trying to back out of it. Tell me straight up, what's an assault weapon.
It is, as I already said, a subset of rifle, which, again, is more definition than you can make for 'woke.' Now, are you going to stop putting words in my mouth and accept what I have now told you more than once?
So your definition of Assault Weapon is "a subset of rifle' - is that correct?
No, my definition compared to the definition of the word woke is that it is a subset of rifle. Why is this so difficult for you? Do you really not understand concepts like comparative language and subsets or are you playing a very irritating game? Because, again, if it's the latter, I'll just block you and be done with it.
I've been very clear with what I said apart from the accidental omission of a single letter.
Please define Assault weapon.
It's really fucking simple, you're doing everything to avoid answering the question.
Got it. You're playing games. Blocked it is.
And for your precise needs...
From the American Heritage Dictionary :
Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.
A military style automatic rifle or carbine that fires a shortened rifle caliber round or lower power smaller calibre round larger than pistol ammunition from a high capacity magazine.
From the Meriam Webster Dictionary
Does that work for you?
Those three definitions indicate very different specific firearms though, and all three have significant gray areas that are left open to interpretation.
Not that that's a failing of the definitions, or even of the term...but it's definitely worth noting within the context of a discussion about potential laws using the terms in question as a defining, delineating qualifier.
There's also the very eyebrow raising last part of that last definition. Basically defining a weapon not by its function or capability but based on aesthetic qualities alone.
Again, if that's the definition everyone agrees upon, fine, whatever... but the narrower the definition, the easier it'll be to get buy in but the fewer weapons it'll affect...whereas a broad definition might cover a lot more firearms but then you're going to have a lot of objections to any legislation based on the increasing number of edge cases where a law impacts a firearm that it probably shouldn't.
...of course this is all hypothetical, and it all exists in the no man's land between the real gun control ideal scenario of simply outlawing all guns and requiring everyone to turn in all guns they own and totally disarming the population...and the hard-line 2A advocates who feel that 2A is the only gun law that should exist, and rather than restricting weapon ownership, laws should instead focus on the illegal acts done with the guns rather than the guns themselves.
Sure! So as long as the manufacture says 'not designed for combat' it's not an assault rifle, right??
Classic whataboutism
A powerful rifle with high ammo capacity.
With many/most modern rifles available with a detachable magazine, ammo capacity isn't a property directly linked to the weapon itself in any sort of concrete way. So with that caveat, how would you propose classifying weapons based on that property when it isn't intrinsically linked to the weapon?
Further, how would you define "powerful"?
Even a small caliber like a 22 is perfectly capable of killing. A 9mm is a fairly low power round and is likely one of the rounds responsible for more human deaths than any other in criminal killings thanks to its widespread popularity. On the other hand, most big game hunting calibers are far more powerful than the rounds most associated with gun violence.
I'm not against addressing gun violence, and in fact I feel it's an area in urgent need of attention...
...but as a gun owner and shooting sports enthusiast who is familiar with guns, it's an area where I feel both sides of the issue argue past one another, one side with their blinders up based on dogma and partisan vitriol underlying their position...and the other side just as partisan...and wanting to make a bunch of laws with little understanding of the subject matter and no regard for any of the potential impacts of their proposed legislation.
I regularly get into debates with my (overwhelmingly liberal) friend group on this subject and I try to stay calm, rational, and open minded to show I'm not just coming from the standard position on the right of "don't do anything about gun violence, end of story"...so my position is basically: I'm willing to consider any proposed legislation that fulfills three criteria... First, the proposed law must not create a precedent of infringing on constitutional rights without due process... Second, the proposed legislation must not make a criminal out of anyone who's currently a law abiding individual in compliance with all laws, who does nothing differently after the law passes...and third, the proposed legislation must be such that it could have been reasonably been expected to significantly reduce or eliminate recent acts of gun violence had it been in effect previously.
If you can come up with a law that checks all those boxes, by all means, I'm interested!
But too often, the laws I hear discussed fail to fall into line with all of those conditions...and other than loophole-closing and background check laws, I have yet to hear any sort of a ban suggestion that does all three.
Wouldn't any new law about firearm sale, ownership, or use do this by definition? If it doesn't change any legal things into illegal things, it isn't doing anything at all. What kind of law can you imagine that would pass this part of your test?
Not necessarily.
But even if that were the case, just make it non-retroactive.
Other conditions aside for a moment, let's say you want to ban all guns with polymer frames.
You could fulfill that specific condition with the provision that all poly frames currently out there are legal to own, use, and sell, but no more retail sales from manufacturers will be permitted.
Again, this is a nonsense hypothetical that wouldn't make sense (then again lots of actual proposals aren't much more realistic), but such a provision would ensure that everyone out there who's already bought one of these guns wouldn't be in a situation where they need to surrender or register their legal purchase now that it's been illegal, or risk felony charges because they didn't do so.
More to the point, many of these laws seem designed to create criminals where no criminals currently exist, as opposed to preventing crimes from happening.
It's like trying to cut down on petty theft by requiring everyone to register all belongings, and then inspecting people's homes and charging them with theft for everything in their home they didn't register...then pointing to all those arrests as proof of the law's success.
Not just the two sides are arguing past each other, they are arguing from wildly different viewpoints. So many urban and suburbanites argue very heavily for gun legislation and much more rural people argue against it. One side view guns solely as a weapon used against people and the other as a tool to hunt, kill nuisance animals on farmland, or protect crops/livestock.
The first isn't familiar with firearms and frequently don't want to get into the minutia because of their viewpoint as guns being solely weapons.
I'm all for reasonable gun laws, but I believe there are more important underlying issues that lead to many of these mass shootings that we as a society can address. The gun is a tool used because it is easy to get and use. But if we placed restrictions that made it harder other tools would be used to carry out the mayhem and destruction these people strive for.
Maybe it's naive and idealistic to think we can address the societal issues that lead people to committing these atrocities rather than just make it harder for them to get the tool they use.
The AR-15 is fairly weak as rifles go so I guess it doesn't count?
The AR in AR-15 doesn't mean assault rifle.
I know. That wasn't the point of my comment.
whats powerful? Whats high capacity?
Don't JAQ off in public.
Is it jaquing off if it's just asking the first obvious question the gun nuts would say?
Arguments need to stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Not even just "gun nuts".
This is the most basic, logical, obvious question that would be asked, and would need to be addressed, in any hypothetical where such a potential law is being discussed.
Essentially, invoking such a term while being unwilling/unable to objectively and clearly define it suggests dishonesty/deception in the argument. Not that these negative qualities necessarily exist, but it's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated in a discussion where party A uses a term, party B asks for a clarification/definition, and party A responds to that with a refusal to do so and a personal attack.
Perfectly valid questions that have clearly made some folks here uncomfortable.
There's lots of these feel good terms thrown around when discussing gun policy that so many of those who use them can't seem to (or aren't willing to) clarify.
But whatabout what your mom does, down by the docks at night?
A semiautomatic or fully automatic rifle; machine gun; or weapon that fires a propelled explosive ordnance.