🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

So apparently if you complain about a facebook ban and tag facebook on X/twitter you will instantly get 20+ replies from random people all suggesting you to reach out to the same one or two accounts on instagram for account recovery help. Even though i didnt say anything about having issues recovering my account.

Apparently its an army of spam/scam bots on twitter to hack your facebook and/or instagram... but my god at least code your bots to have a slight delay so it isnt obvious.

#facebook #instagram #twitter #X #Xitter

For those following along and listening it seems the thread broke. You can follow the replies to this as an orphaned thread here:

https://qoto.org/@gwr/111766301134110760

@gwr @LouisIngenthron

@gwr

> Fair enough. I should have asked what was meant. And certainly, attributes like “automatic” or “assault” distort rational exchange — as does “anti-gun-nuts” in the cartoon.

anti-gun nut is certainly inflamatory, as are the other terms. The difference is I didnt call you or anyone an anti-gun-nut, nor did I say everyone who wanted a restriction on a gun was a "nut". I did say however that people who resemble this cartoon (or at least my interpritation of it) are anti-gun-nuts.

Since you are arguing that you do not act like this cartoon depicts then even if you dont like guns, that doesnt qualify you for the "nut" category.

So if you were offended by that term then perhaps you think "the shoe fits" but that is all you making that association.

As for the terms you used, those are not insults against a person so its a bit different to consider them. They are just hyperbolic terms that imply one thing and mean another (for example an AR-15 is often called an assault rifle, yet of all the rifles it is literally one of the least powerful and is not even suitable for deer hunting at any real distance).

> The dissimilarities between the other weapons and guns are imo so striking, that it is hard to really take the cartoon more serious

If you saw the cartoon in isolation I could understand you thinking that is the whole point and maybe drawing that conclusion. But my statement about the cartoon, and thus my point, was far more general than that. I stated more generally that anti-gun-nuts tend to use entierly different logic when talking about violence or death related to things outside of guns, as compared to guns. So the comparison isnt just against other weapons, it is about their consistency of logic in a much more general sense.

> You can defend yourself against attacks from the other weapons and the perpetrator needs to approach you closely

For the ones pictured maybe, but even if we limit ourselves to the context of the cartoon (and not my own) there are plenty of less regulated ways to kill people that is far far more effective than a gun en mass. A tank of CO is readily available without ID or regulation. A murderer could easily take a small tank on a train in his backpack. Open the gas up and leave it as he leaves the train. Assuming the stops take a hot minute (not int he city) everyone would be dead by the time they reach their next stop. Kills at a distance, silently, cant be defended against easily (as any defense is easily cirtcumvented by just picking a different gas that is pison).

I could literally sit here and list 100 different weapons more effective at mass murder than guns that are easily accessible and untracked... So while your argument may work for the fairly limited scope of weapons directly depicted int he cartoon it utterly fails once you look beyond that, even within the scope of just weapons.

> What is the likeliness of getting a serious or even fatal wound accidentally from cleaning those other weapons (or tools as you say).

Bodily autonomy is sacred, my body, my choice, none of your business. NO ONE has a right to tell me what i can do with my own body or what risks I can put myself in.

But to answer your question, it depends on the person. For a responsible gun owner the liklihood is near 0. For an irresponsible one the liklihood is probably rather high. As for the average, i dont care because the individual is the one with the right to decide if they think they are in the high risk or low risk category and decide for themsleves if they want to risk that or not, just as it should be.

> Honestly, that cartoon to me looks as stupid as they can get. And it tries to be “sophisticated” and “clever”—but imho it just is not.

I care more about my opinion than any speculation ont he opinion of the author. Cartoons are not meant to be complete arguments, so while you are right that when viewed as a complete argument it has holes the expectation is you think beyond the cartoon itself, which is almost always an oversimplification due to the medium.

> (Interesting, that you claim people would be alive had they carried a gun—I doubt your ability to be simulate alternate real scenarios to a reliable degree here…)

Thats just a bad faith argument. You know what is implied. Without a gun he had no options and is dead now. With a gun sure he may have still died, but he would have stood a chance, and given the circumstances reason would suggest that chance would have been monumentally higher with a gun than without.

@LouisIngenthron

@gwr @LouisIngenthron

> My point was beyond that and the argumentation smacked of sophistry imo.

maybe, as far as the comic itself goes its hard to say, I would need to talk to the author to get a better sense of what sort of examples they really meant. I certainly deal with this constantly when discussing guns, that people use "special" logic to reason why guns are bad, and then when you apply that same logic to other things with the same properties the logic obviously fails and needs changing to work.

Now you pointed out absurd examples which are not valid examples of what I just said. The existance of invalid examples is not a way to even imply that there is a lack of valid examples. So whether your right or wrong your approach to arguing your point did a very poor job at doing it.

That said I suspect a better more effective tactic for you to disagree is **first** ask questions about what was meant, even ask for valid real world examples. After which argue agains tthose non-absurd (though perhaps wrong) examples.

> So, you believe that the civilian and recreational use of guns outweighs military and paramilitary training.

Thats an odd question. What did I say that suggested this is what I think? No I dont think that, nor did I say it.

I was quite explicit in my words. Shooting a piece of paper is a non-violent act. As I said the overwhelming use of weapons when shot has no intention of harming or threatening anyone. The times in which a weapon is used as a weapon to actually cause harm or the threat of harm is likely <1% if I had to guess of all discharges of weapons.

> For those “recreational” uses anyway attack rifles and many automatic weapons would likely not make sense.

"attack rifles"... that sounds like a really weird made up word with no real usefulness, similar to the other misused and imaginary term "assault weapon"... Also automatic weapons have been effectively illegal (extremely regulated and only with a lot of money and licensing can you buy an antique). In fact automatic weapons in civilian hands has been effectively illegal for like 60 years.

> But then, noboby needs to carry guns in public and guns could be kept locked away at sports clubs for pure and maximized recreational utility?

I can think of plenty of people who need or needed to carry a gun in public. I know people who are dead because they didnt. My argument is **not** that guns **should** never be used to kill or threaten to kill, it absolutely should and is the responsible thing to do to own a gun for that purpose. I am only pointing out that that is not exclusively their purpose and framing it as such is a bad faith argument.

@LouisIngenthron

Life hack: Don't like police, think they are #ACAB... easy solution. You can tresspass anyone, including police. Use a FOIA request, get the list of all police for your district, and issue a tresspass warning preemtively for all of them.

Now if they step foot on your property (without a warrant) it is a criminal and arrestable offense. Obviously they can still come on your land in an emergency without a warrant (exigent circumstances it is called). But if they try to violate your rights, you have a much stronger case to have them jailed.

@mangeurdenuage And he didnt die, which seems to suggest god's approval of the situation.

#QOTO development and update reached its first milestone. We are now brining up the CI pipeline to test it, but the first merge to pull in new features and bug fixes after a LOT of conflicts is ready!

If anyone wants to follow along the new repo is here where the new team is doing most of the activity, but it will be synced soon with the main git too. Right now the work is done in forks but you should see a merge request for it show up in the next day or so.

https://git.cleverthis.com/cleverthis/qoto/qoto

@VoxDei if i leave it here will you read and discuss in the morning? If so ill leave it. IF your out and wont read it, no worries.