Sign In

TM2YC

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
25-Apr-2013
Last activity
16-Oct-2017
Posts
4108

Post History

Post
#1117197
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

yhwx said:

TM2YC said:

chyron8472 said:

TM2YC said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://deadspin.com/the-nfl-quietly-changed-its-obscure-rule-about-standing-1819300660

What could encapsulate the spirit of “Land of the free and home of the brave” better than a rule that forces citizens to behave EXACTLY the way that the powers-that-be tell them to, with any slight deviation from excepted norms being be met with summary punishment.

It’s not a law that the government has mandated against citizens.

I never said it was. I was talking about the policy not being in the spirit of what the anthem is about.

chyron was not referring to you. He was referring to NeverarGreat.

By quoting me and posting it before NeverarGreat had made his post? FAKE NEWS!

This post has been edited.

Post
#1117192
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

TM2YC said:

TV’s Frink said:

https://deadspin.com/the-nfl-quietly-changed-its-obscure-rule-about-standing-1819300660

What could encapsulate the spirit of “Land of the free and home of the brave” better than a rule that forces citizens to behave EXACTLY the way that the powers-that-be tell them to, with any slight deviation from excepted norms being be met with summary punishment.

It’s not a law that the government has mandated against citizens.

I never said it was. I was talking about the policy not being in the spirit of what the anthem is about… however, in practice, the chief representative of the government openly threatening the NFL is much the same thing as a government mandate.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1115527
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

I don’t think I’ve ever argued against a federal minimum age requirement of 18 or so to purchase firearms (I’d also like to see other minimum ages baselined there as well)

^ Discussing solutions. Which is what I was saying that article was not doing.

Tyrphanax said:

I feel like teaching a child responsibility around guns and then allowing that child to own guns doesn’t really equate to the incredibly destructive disease of alcoholism.

You made the comparison. The point I was making with my continuation of your comparison was simply that many things like alcohol and driving are treated waaaay more seriously in law, than guns are. Basic common sense would suggest that something designed solely to kill the maximum amount of people, in the shortest possible time should be regulated far more rigorously than those other examples (and not to a lesser or comparable extent).

Tyrphanax said:

Honest question: do you think I have a disease because I learned about guns and gun safety and responsibility as a child?

Obviously not. Again, you started the comparison with alcohol. However, on that line of thought… if it was my child (and I had to choose) I’d rather hand them a bottle of Gin, than hand them a Gun.

I’m glad you were given gun training as a child, I’m sure it reduced your chance of shooting yourself, or a member of your family by accident. I’d prefer to remove that possibility full stop. I can’t even fathom why anybody would want to give a gun to a child but that’s me.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Daaaaa Frainkster

Boy, the job is sure starting to age Trump!

This post has been edited.

Post
#1115423
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

This 538 series on gun deaths in America from last year is worth revisiting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Here’s a great accompanying article by a former 538 writer:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

A very flaky article. Basically “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things” 😉

Er… I don’t think that was the throughline at all.

I think it was more along the lines of “There is a problem but people are trying to put a band-aid on it instead of addressing the root cause.”

I missed the part where it diagnosed the “root cause” and came up with a solution.

I’m extrapolating from what’s in the article:

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

(Emphasis mine)

The root causes I identified here are: access to and stigma against mental healthcare, especially among older males (as we may be seeing in the Las Vegas incident); poverty, systemic racism, and other aspects of society that lead to gang violence; and low priority and intervention with regards to domestic violence among LE.

The solutions proposed in the article are, as written:

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

[…]

A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

“We should just ban guns” is a really easy thing to say, but let’s face it, if all guns disappeared tomorrow, would suicide numbers go down substantially? Would gang violence be impacted in a meaningful way? Would domestic be curtailed in a major way? I sadly doubt it. You can say “well it would be less deadly” but to step away from my pro-gun bias for a moment, is “less deadly” really the goal here? You might slow down or even stop mass shootings with a ban, sure, but when we look overseas at methods used in mass killings, a cursory search shows more man-portable IEDs than guns. I feel like a bomb going off in the middle of the crowd in Vegas would have been a lot worse than what we saw.

The more important use of time and resources in my opinion is to find out what makes people want to kill a lot of other people and work on a solution to that before they get to the point where they’re choosing a weapon to carry out their plan. By that time, it’s already too late.

Yes that’s a longer version of what I said originally about the article: “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things”.

…or an intermediate length summary…

“America has a gun problem that other countries don’t have but I don’t understand why we have this unique problem (True we have a sh*t-ton of guns and little control unlike these other countries but that’s clearly nothing to do with it) so let’s ignore that particular problem and fix other things like mental health and violence against women that are problems not unique to America, or unique to the gun issue”

If the writer is proposing to fix mental health in human males (as if people haven’t thought of trying to do that across the globe already, for obvious reasons unrelated to guns… even if you could fix it!) and do nothing about guns, then good luck to him. He basically just said, let’s do nothing about the gun problem but buried it beneath a lot of words.

I disagree that the problem is a “gun problem.” We have laws protecting our intrinsic rights to defend ourselves from people who would cause us harm, and those rights “shall not be infringed.”

It’s not “ignore the supposed problem,” it is “focus on the actual problems.”

The problems mentioned should be fixed regardless of the gun issue. Here’s some other things I pulled outta the air…

  • If the transport infrastructure was improved, that could make a small statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be sitting in less traffic jams and being less stressed?

  • If the government introduced a public information program to reduce sugar consumption, that could make a small statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be less hyper?

  • If companies paid people more, gave them more holidays, helped them with more benefits, better pensions, or gave them more flexible hours, that could make a small (or perhaps large?) statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be more happy?

We should be doing all this anyway and if it was easy we would have already. Now what about that gun issue? 😉

It’s like arguing that because “An apple a day keeps the Doctor away!” we should stop researching cures for cancer. Yes a healthy diet will have a measurable positive effect on fighting cancer but it does not fix the problem.

CatBus said:

Tyrphanax said:

to defend ourselves from people who would cause us harm

There’s the main point of contention right there. Privately-owned guns simply don’t do that. When you buy a gun, in the overwhelming majority of cases it will never serve a single practical purpose (and there’s nothing wrong with that). Of the remaining extremely unlikely scenarios, it is MUCH more likely that the gun will be used, intentionally or unintentionally, to harm your family than to protect it.

The person who would cause us harm is the person bringing the gun into our homes because they mistakenly believe it makes us safer.

However, I do agree with your larger point that the second amendment forbids gun bans on any levels. I also believe it forbids bans on private ownership of chemical and biological weapons. “Arms” isn’t specific enough. It needs a repeal or at the very least a serious re-write.

I’ll expect to see you guys throwing your weight behind a ban on alcohol consumption, drug use, and vehicle ownership too then. ;D

I thought we were discussing that article’s proposal to do nothing about the gun issue but if you instead want to switch to the old “total-ban” straw-man, then I guess that discussion is over (Not forgetting that I said guns didn’t need to be completely banned a couple of pages back).

Since you are making a compar-ison between guns and “alcohol consumption, drug use, and vehicle ownership” then you are conceding they are compar-able. So let’s explore that. e.g.

In the US (if I understand things correctly) Children are not allowed to drive because it’s too dangerous. Children are not allowed alcohol because it’s too dangerous. Children are not allowed drugs because they are too dangerous (adults aren’t either but it’s your example). Children are allowed guns because they aren’t dangerous?

A former(?) forum-member proudly claimed in this very thread that he shed a tear of joy at his little daughter’s gun use and collection of weapons. Some of us were horrified no doubt but I think it’d be fair to say ALL of us would be horrified if he’d proudly declared that his young kid was already a full-blown alcoholic after he’d started her on Absinthe at an early age (we’d probably hope he was arrested). Why is a relatively (I want to emphasise that word) harmless thing like alcohol treated as worse in the eyes of the law than weapons designed specifically for the mass slaughter of human beings?

This post has been edited.

Post
#1115158
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

This 538 series on gun deaths in America from last year is worth revisiting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Here’s a great accompanying article by a former 538 writer:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

A very flaky article. Basically “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things” 😉

Er… I don’t think that was the throughline at all.

I think it was more along the lines of “There is a problem but people are trying to put a band-aid on it instead of addressing the root cause.”

I missed the part where it diagnosed the “root cause” and came up with a solution.

I’m extrapolating from what’s in the article:

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

(Emphasis mine)

The root causes I identified here are: access to and stigma against mental healthcare, especially among older males (as we may be seeing in the Las Vegas incident); poverty, systemic racism, and other aspects of society that lead to gang violence; and low priority and intervention with regards to domestic violence among LE.

The solutions proposed in the article are, as written:

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

[…]

A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

“We should just ban guns” is a really easy thing to say, but let’s face it, if all guns disappeared tomorrow, would suicide numbers go down substantially? Would gang violence be impacted in a meaningful way? Would domestic be curtailed in a major way? I sadly doubt it. You can say “well it would be less deadly” but to step away from my pro-gun bias for a moment, is “less deadly” really the goal here? You might slow down or even stop mass shootings with a ban, sure, but when we look overseas at methods used in mass killings, a cursory search shows more man-portable IEDs than guns. I feel like a bomb going off in the middle of the crowd in Vegas would have been a lot worse than what we saw.

The more important use of time and resources in my opinion is to find out what makes people want to kill a lot of other people and work on a solution to that before they get to the point where they’re choosing a weapon to carry out their plan. By that time, it’s already too late.

Yes that’s a longer version of what I said originally about the article: “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things”.

…or an intermediate length summary…

“America has a gun problem that other countries don’t have but I don’t understand why we have this unique problem (True we have a sh*t-ton of guns and little control unlike these other countries but that’s clearly nothing to do with it) so let’s ignore that particular problem and fix other things like mental health and violence against women that are problems not unique to America, or unique to the gun issue”

If the writer is proposing to fix mental health in human males (as if people haven’t thought of trying to do that across the globe already, for obvious reasons unrelated to guns… even if you could fix it!) and do nothing about guns, then good luck to him. He basically just said, let’s do nothing about the gun problem but buried it beneath a lot of words.

I disagree that the problem is a “gun problem.” We have laws protecting our intrinsic rights to defend ourselves from people who would cause us harm, and those rights “shall not be infringed.”

It’s not “ignore the supposed problem,” it is “focus on the actual problems.”

The problems mentioned should be fixed regardless of the gun issue. Here’s some other things I pulled outta the air…

  • If the transport infrastructure was improved, that could make a small statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be sitting in less traffic jams and being less stressed?

  • If the government introduced a public information program to reduce sugar consumption, that could make a small statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be less hyper?

  • If companies paid people more, gave them more holidays, helped them with more benefits, better pensions, or gave them more flexible hours, that could make a small (or perhaps large?) statistically measurable reduction in gun violence because people would be more happy?

We should be doing all this anyway and if it was easy we would have already. Now what about that gun issue? 😉

It’s like arguing that because “An apple a day keeps the Doctor away!” we should stop researching cures for cancer. Yes a healthy diet will have a measurable positive effect on fighting cancer but it does not fix the problem.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1115119
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

This 538 series on gun deaths in America from last year is worth revisiting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Here’s a great accompanying article by a former 538 writer:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

A very flaky article. Basically “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things” 😉

Er… I don’t think that was the throughline at all.

I think it was more along the lines of “There is a problem but people are trying to put a band-aid on it instead of addressing the root cause.”

I missed the part where it diagnosed the “root cause” and came up with a solution.

I’m extrapolating from what’s in the article:

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

(Emphasis mine)

The root causes I identified here are: access to and stigma against mental healthcare, especially among older males (as we may be seeing in the Las Vegas incident); poverty, systemic racism, and other aspects of society that lead to gang violence; and low priority and intervention with regards to domestic violence among LE.

The solutions proposed in the article are, as written:

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

[…]

A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

“We should just ban guns” is a really easy thing to say, but let’s face it, if all guns disappeared tomorrow, would suicide numbers go down substantially? Would gang violence be impacted in a meaningful way? Would domestic be curtailed in a major way? I sadly doubt it. You can say “well it would be less deadly” but to step away from my pro-gun bias for a moment, is “less deadly” really the goal here? You might slow down or even stop mass shootings with a ban, sure, but when we look overseas at methods used in mass killings, a cursory search shows more man-portable IEDs than guns. I feel like a bomb going off in the middle of the crowd in Vegas would have been a lot worse than what we saw.

The more important use of time and resources in my opinion is to find out what makes people want to kill a lot of other people and work on a solution to that before they get to the point where they’re choosing a weapon to carry out their plan. By that time, it’s already too late.

Yes that’s a longer version of what I said originally about the article: “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things”.

…or an intermediate length summary…

“America has a gun problem that other countries don’t have but I don’t understand why we have this unique problem (True we have a sh*t-ton of guns and little control unlike these other countries but that’s clearly nothing to do with it) so let’s ignore that particular problem and fix other things like mental health and violence against women that are problems not unique to America, or unique to the gun issue”

If the writer is proposing to fix mental health in human males (as if people haven’t thought of trying to do that across the globe already, for obvious reasons unrelated to guns… even if you could fix it!) and do nothing about guns, then good luck to him. He basically just said, let’s do nothing about the gun problem but buried it beneath a lot of words.

Post
#1114880
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

This 538 series on gun deaths in America from last year is worth revisiting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Here’s a great accompanying article by a former 538 writer:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

A very flaky article. Basically “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things” 😉

Er… I don’t think that was the throughline at all.

I think it was more along the lines of “There is a problem but people are trying to put a band-aid on it instead of addressing the root cause.”

I missed the part where it diagnosed the “root cause” and came up with a solution.

Post
#1114827
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TV’s Frink said:

This 538 series on gun deaths in America from last year is worth revisiting.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Here’s a great accompanying article by a former 538 writer:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

A very flaky article. Basically “There is a problem but I don’t understand how to fix it, so let’s ignore the problem and fix other things” 😉

This post has been edited.

Post
#1114752
Topic
Are there bands for who you have all they've ever done?
Time

darthrush said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t think anything past Ok Computer is any good.

I do have an unpopular affection for The Bends and consider it to be Radiohead’s second best record, but In Rainbows is mesmerizing to me. It’s atmosphere and range of emotions is impeccable in my opinion. Each to their own.

“an unpopular affection for The Bends”? It’s regularly voted one of the best albums ever made (an opinion I subscribe too) so you’re not alone.

I thought the 2nd disc that came with the deluxe ‘In Rainbows’ was better (e.g. Bangers + Mash). I didn’t hate the album but it didn’t hold my attention. Amnesiac was the last LP that I loved (maybe my favourite) and I never tire of it. Hail to the Thief had some fine stuff too.

I happened to watch Radiohead’s Glastonbury set this year (on TV) with my father. As per usual for any band since the 80s, he thought they were dreadful but I totally had to agree with him. They managed to turn every song into a lifeless, tuneless dirge. I was saying “No wait this next one is a classic dad, you’ll like this!.. er… oooh nooo”. LOL

This post has been edited.

Post
#1114009
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

YodaFan67 said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This means the right to state militias, and, more broadly, the allowance of regular citizens to own guns. It does not mean that things like bans on assault rifles are somehow illegal.

Granted, my knowledge of the US Constitution is minimal but doesn’t the old-timey phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” translate to “A well run military, is necessary to the security of a free country”. Who would disagree with that? (except dictators and the British monarchy of the day).

Does it say somewhere else that “free state” specifically means “the right to state militias” and not as it reads?

This post has been edited.

Post
#1113513
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

You don’t need to ban guns, just control them way more.

A simple question for the legislature would be: Can this gun be used by a single person to easily massacre 50+ people and maim/injure 500+ more in a short space of time? If yes, then ban it. It’s crazy that that is even controversial. Isis struggle to build bombs that cause devastation on this scale.

Post
#1113323
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Sorry for everybody in Vegas and the US today. Every time I got back in my work van and turned on the radio the casualty list was even higher.

Hearing the sound of the gun fire on the radio, it was so rapid and continuous. The kind of sustained fire you associate with miniguns in the movies. How are non-military people allowed access to weaponry like this?

Post
#1113078
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

SilverWook said:

You mean Trumpy sounding like he thinks it’s been the same NK leader for 25 years?

Yes. It’s truly frightening how clueless he is.

Hopefully he sees somebody pointing out his mistake on this. The tweets where Trump tries to front out his obvious mistakes are the funniest ones.

Post
#1112856
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

SilverWook said:

Possessed said:

He is right about one thing though. Puerto Rico IS surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water. So maybe we should just give him a break? I mean the man knows what an island is, what more could you ask for the leader of the country?

I didn’t know that seagull from Watership Down was writing his speeches. 😛

If only Peter Serafinowicz could see your idea. He did a great job with it though…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLG1_DAVAz8

This post has been edited.

Post
#1111962
Topic
Are there bands for who you have all they've ever done?
Time

CatBus said:

Right Said Fred’s _I’m Too Sexy. Okay, maybe they technically have other songs, but really who’d know?

What about ‘Deeply Dippy’?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZXQOJiqQM

“Deeply dippy bout the way you walk, a contact sport, let the neighbours talk. Deeply dippy I’m your Superman, I’ll explain, you’re my Lois Lane”

Their whole debut ‘Up’ album is a pop classic (first CD I bought in '92). Every song sounds like it could have been a single (half of them were). I could sing every lyric. I’m not joking, really I’m not joking.

Post
#1111918
Topic
Are there bands for who you have all they've ever done?
Time

Interesting thread. I assume by “all they’ve ever done”, you mean “all the albums they’ve ever done”, otherwise I’m not sure I believe any of you 😉.

There a few artists for which I have everything, up to a point, the point being when they turned to crap (or the quality dropped below the starting high) and then I have nothing more by them. I’m a fairly loyal listener but once my loyalty has repeatedly been repaid with failure, I’m out forever.

Jack White & Co - At one point I did once have almost everything, albums/singles etc he ever had a hand in but gave up soon after he released a couple of lack-luster solo albums and released so much vinyl on his Third Man Record label that I could never keep up. What I do have will be worth something if I ever felt like parting with it (which I won’t).

Manic Street Preachers - Again at one point I had (almost) every LP, 12", 7", cassette-tape and CD re-issue but the last few albums have dropped off a cliff in quality terms so I have nothing recent.

Pulp - All the albums, compilations, a few singles (solo stuff too).

Eels - All the albums up to a point. Not that he is bad now but it kinda feels like ‘Blinking Lights’ can never be topped. Plus pre/post/also Eels stuff.

Gram Parsons - His BB albums, solo stuff, re-issues, compilations etc. It’s all good, if only he’d lived long enough to do more.

The Smiths/Morrissey - I have everything up 'til the recent years when he’s gone way off the boil and possibly insane.

Radiohead - Everything up to ‘In Rainbows’. Anybody listening past that point is kidding themselves that they are still good LOL

Billy Bragg - Every album re-issue which have all the singles/b-sides too. So pretty much the lot.

British Sea Power - Up to a point (3rd LP) I have everything in all formats (plus solo stuff) and t-shirts. After that I lost interest and the beautiful artwork dried up making it less collectable.

Pixies - Everything before the new sans-Kim-Deal stuff. No interest in that really.

Kraftwerk - All the main albums, not the pre-Autobahn instrumental stuff.

Honorable mentions…

Bob Dylan - I’ve got 25+ albums. All the important stuff (arguably) but nowhere near complete.

Iggy Pop/The Stooges - I’ve got loads of the albums and compilations but he’s released a lot of rubbish inbetween two or three of the best albums ever recorded.

Elvis Costello - 10+ albums (all genius) but he’s got so many.

Led Zeppelin - Everything up to the last couple of LPs… nobody owns them… even Led Zeppelin themselves LOL.

Probably lots of other bands but I forget.

This post has been edited.

To the top