this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
17 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
305 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Suggesting that vulnerable people avoid guns or disarm in the face of rising fascism targeting them is ludicrous. That's not to say every situation would improve, or that this situation would've been different.
Edit: Also, lets be clear, the police don't need the excuse of you having a weapon to shoot you, they've demonstrated repeatedly they will come up with an excuse and likely get away with it.
As the kind of person who is targeted by rising fascism, I would prefer you did not speak for us. I am firmly against gun ownership. The statistics show that having a gun on you makes you less safe, not more.
As someone who knows that you have no idea what "kind of person" @kool_newt@beehaw.org is... I would suggest you don't act like you can take away someones voice on behalf of "your" category of people.
Nobody can speak for a whole race, color, creed, type, or any other aggregate of people that includes the "whole" of people. They very well could be "vulnerable" themselves and you've just dismissed their statement in the affirmative against your stance.
And to preempt it. You also don't know who/what I am. So don't bother with your crappy logic on me either.
I didn't say they weren't a vulnerable person, merely that even if they were they did not speak for us.
If they cannot represent the entire class of people... Then you can't either.
Next time just say "Don't speak for me".
Did I say I spoke for the entire class of people?
Yes... That's what "us" means.
Yeah, if I'd literally said, "I speak for us." All I said was, "You don't speak for us." Which is true. I never claimed to be speaking for anyone but myself.
They may very well speak for some. You don't know. But regardless, they appear to only be speaking for themselves. So your response of "don't speak for us" is indeed invoking the entire class.
And no, you're not speaking for yourself when you say "us" unless you've got Dissociative Identity Disorder or something of that nature... Or possible identify with "us" as a pronoun?
Otherwise... when I say "come with us" do you expect to go somewhere with me alone? or as a group? Probably the latter... and that should prove my point. You're speaking for others when you said "don't speak for us".
God. If you're this deliberately dense, there's no point in arguing with you. Enjoy whatever this shit is rattling around in your brain. Blocked.
When you finally address what was said rather than bringing up alternative points we can continue a normal conversation.
And what's the point of responding at all if you're just going to block the person you're conversing with? Do you need to get the last word in on a conversation to feel good about yourself?
Who said I was speaking for "us"? And what makes you think I'm not in that group?
You sure did imply it. And nobody said you weren't in that group, merely that you did not speak for us.