Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
ghostoffuffle's profile
ghostoffuffle







stats
following: 46
followed tags: 11
followed domains: 0
badges given: 12 of 12
member for: 1473 days
style: dark



comments 7

That's my nightmare

    the preponderance of American pop music is based on the beat of two and four," he says. "You'll have a lot of cultural influences that cause people to do one and three. I remember being in the Vienna Stadthalle — the town hall in Vienna, with about 12,000 people in it — and it was, like, Teutonic.
ghostoffuffle  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: May 9, 2018

Um. Louisville, Kentucky. So come to think of it I guess I can't rag on other regions for racism and annoying accents. But Louisville is actually a great place. Oasis in a sea of Kentucky.

ghostoffuffle  ·  link  ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: May 9, 2018

Dude, the Northeast suxxx. You ever been anywhere in the Northeast where you didn't think, "this'd be great if it weren't for the traffic and the accent and the racism and winters that made you want to kill yourself"?

Is any job worth the Northeast gawddamn

Ohoho, I'm not an MD. That'd break me. I'm an ED RN. At least I don't technically have to take my work home with me. Work is still grueling. Or maybe I'm just not cut out for the stress.

Beats are put together on a Roland SP-555 using soundbanks from the CR78 and the 808. Think I used some LinnDrum samples as well. All synth sounds are built on a Microkorg. Bass is some shitpot Chinese knockoff I got for $75 at Guitar Center. At some point I realized pushing all the stuff I was recording through an old Aiwa boombox gave it a nice warmth, added cool distortion and also compressed sounds better than Protools' free shitty compression algorithm.

Shabaz Qalander

Can't find it on youtube, just log into spotify

Never has an ode to an ancient Sufi mystic sounded so. Fucking. Funky gawddamn. Track is 25 min long and I can't stop listening and my wife is upstairs being like "honey are you coming to bed" and I'm all "up in a sec I gotta jam with my man Qualandar for a few more bars"

By the way mk for some reason if you post a raw link to spotify instead of embedding it just leaves a blank space. Ex.:

This article made me feel like I've been relying on some reductive-ass thinking re. Hearts and Minds for a long time. Kinda took it as gospel that of course we have to win over the community leaders in Kandahar if we want to get anywhere in Afghanistan. Never tried to apply that kind of logic to my own city. What are community leaders? How big is a community? How do we win people over? What's the timetable? Whut? I don't like to think that I reduce other cultures to a bunch of airy-fairy sociological precepts... but hell yeah I do

Hm. You and I, I think we're working with different definitions. Moving goalposts, for instance:

ME: Assault-style weapons seem to be defined primarily by their effective marketing, which is baked into gun design and promotes a militaristic approach to gun ownership and operation.

YOU: I have NEVER SEEN this marketing of which you speak.

ME: here it is on the gun, as explicitly advertised on the manufacturer's website.

YOU: I have NEVER TAKEN such claims from the website or features of those guns seriously. Also, try to define assault-style weapons, but in a way that's different than how you've already defined them.

Motte and Bailey?

ME: Assault rifles are becoming the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

YOU: prove that AR15s are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

ME: I didn't say that, as such a claim would be unsupportable. You changed what I said to make your position defensible.

YOU: I win!

It's not that I WON'T engage with your arguments, it's that I CAN'T because you haven't yet leveled any. "I disagree" isn't an argument, it's a basic opinion. "people who don't own guns obviously don't know anything about guns, and thus are unqualified to contribute to the national debate" is kind of like saying "only gun owners should be allowed to speak to and shape policy on gun restrictions," which isn't so much of an argument as it is an absurdity. You're acting as though my inability to map out the differences in firing mechanisms between rifles renders me unfit for debate on policy, which is semantic bullshittery and you know it.

Which brings me to our biggest gulf in definitions: debate. You seem to think that it's sufficient just to lean on all the old semantic talking points that I always see trotted out in these discussions: "assault style can mean anything! you don't know the difference between a clip and a mag! those guns don't even work the same way!" Because it's easier to tout your mechanical knowledge of the tool than to defend the nature or necessity of the tool. You also seem content to constantly call me out as "naive," and then when I repeatedly invite you to develop your argument, start pouting about how I characterize gun owners as "brainwashed psychos," which I never did or even came close to doing. Ever. Explicitly or implicitly. At this point, my best guess is that you've had this argument so many times that you're responding to what you think I'm saying rather than actually examining my argument...?

And FWIW, I never addressed your "prove that previous policy has changed public perception" retort because that's a way larger discussion than just guns, and requires nuance, and this exchange has left me with little faith that we can speak to each other in the language of nuance, or even mutual respect. Which is a basic prerequisite for complex discussions.

Sorry you got bent out of shape over this topic. I do appreciate a lot of what you contribute on this site. I don't believe the above exchange represents the best of what you have to offer.

Read my initial post again. Never said AR15 was the weapon of choice. I said "assault style rifles", and I stand by that claim. Revising my printed words and then arguing against your preferred revision gets you nowhere, and wins you no points. If you're going to play semantics, at least stick to your own rules.

You haven't yet provided any counterarguments. You've just insisted that I provide evidence, and then more evidence when you didn't like the evidence I provided because it didn't align with your personal opinion on the matter. Your chief response up to now seems to be "you're naive, so I don't need to live up to my own standard of discourse." Have we ever interacted before this? What evidence, beyond my horrible mischaracterization of the AR line, leads you to believe that I'm naive, or otherwise unworthy of decent discourse?

You're right- my misrepresentation of what "AR" stands for, plus my substituting "clips" for "mags" totally negates my larger point. I can't possibly understand the finer details of gun culture, and thus can't possibly contribute to the debate on how we ought to approach guns.

At no point did I suggest that an MCX functions the same way as an AR-15. My argument addressed the way assault-style rifles are marketed to the public at large, and seem to call out particularly to would-be mass shooters. At this point, I've provided plenty of "citation". You've ignored the provided evidence, and responded with snark and little else; "I don't take that marketing that I asked you to provide proof of seriously" does not count as a salient point. Neither does "you don't understand the people you're criticizing, or the things," which always comes off as the last thin attempt that pro-gun folks make to diffuse a discussion they can't stay on top of.

Again, if you want to come off as the enlightened, moderate gun-owner, meet disagreement with respect and constructive counterarguments. If you just want to kick more dirt, don't bother replying further- you just look dirty. At this point, though, the onus isn't really on me to provide more evidence to be dismissed out of hand.

Citation provided

Newtown: Bushmaster

Aurora: M&P15

Las Vegas: FOURTEEN .223 AR15 rifles; EIGHT .308 AR10 rifles

Pulse: SIG MCX

San Bernardino: DPMS Panther; M&P15

Those are the shootings I remember off the top of my head. In the last couple years.

I'm talking about marketing you've never seen? Go to Bushmaster's website and peruse their tac rifles- say, their Patrolman's Carbine. All components mil spec! How very tactical. Or maybe you're in the mood for something more high end? How about the ACR enhanced (ACR, of course, stands for Adaptive Combat Rifle... perfect for hunting, right?) whose blackout flash hider provides exceptional signature reduction. You know, so you don't give your position away to the deer.

Not in the mood for Bushmaster? Yeah, maybe you have an icky taste in your mouth popping off rounds at the range ever since a guy murdered a bunch of six year olds with one of those. Bad for branding. Let's go over to Colt and check out their classic AR (again... Assault Rifle) series, which are "based on the same military standards and specifications as the United States issue Colt M16 and M4 carbine." You know, for sportsmen and hunters alike! Their Combat Unit carbine would be perfect for an idyllic day out duckhunting with your kid. Too flashy? The AR15A4 is no-frills and mimics the line that provides "our armed forces the confidence required to accomplish any mission." All models function with 30 round clips; the pricier models can adapt to all of your ammunition needs.

I'd call it dog-whistling, but the frequencies are low enough to pick up even from my inferior station as a non-gun owner. This is marketing. It speaks to the most militaristic aspects of gun ownership, with an obligatory nod and wink towards "hunters and sportsmen." You're smart- do you really not see a particular flavor to these descriptions?

What I liked about your posted article is that it fairly illustrated the anti-gun crowd's general stance without ever denigrating or belittling it, and offered an option presumably acceptable to both sides. There's something for everybody to learn there. I'm happy to talk out viewpoints with you, but I have little patience for condescension. My POV isn't "naive" just because you don't like it.

I'm for this. I'm also for raising taxes on ammunition. I'm also for limiting clip capacities. I'm also for an assault weapons ban.

I've heard all the arguments about how it would be ineffective, and how assault-style weapons only make up X amount of yearly gun deaths, and what is an assault-style weapon anyway, and slippery slope yadda yadda. But those arguments miss the point. It's not about an immediate decrease in numbers, it's about a slow cultural shift away from the glorification of guns. Up to now, assault-style weapons have been effectively marketed as, like, totally cool, and effective, and what, some sort of time-honored tradition? In turn, they contribute to this very American notion that guns in general aren't something to be feared, or even a necessary evil, but a tool worth celebrating.

Banning such weapons won't immediately turn back the tide of gun violence. But it would be a step toward re-framing the way we talk about guns. Policy shapes culture shapes policy shapes culture. Right now, our society still has what I and many outsiders would consider a sick obsession with weapons of war. We need to attack it from all avenues, not just the statistically significant or politically expedient ones.

One more note on assault-style weapons in particular. I believe it's not even a second amendment matter, it's a matter of the first amendment. Down to the broad taxonomy- "assault-style"- these guns have been advertised as A-1 killing machines. The marketing is inbuilt into their design- grip type, ergonomics, modifiables, color, shape- everything to remind us that they look and for the most part are built to act like the most efficient military models. And whether the pro-gun crowd likes it or not, they've become the de facto weapon of choice for mass shooters. They've taken on their own dark kind of brand recognition.

Speech is free until it's not. You can't yell "fire" inside a crowded theater. You can't direct marketing of cigarettes to minors, or even put an ad for such on TV. At what point does Bushmaster's effective marketing of their product become a public health hazard? At what point should manufacturers be regulated in how they build their product in order to sell it as a certain function to a certain crowd? I'd say we've long since passed that point.

posts and shares 2/8