swim

Lol your first one was wrong, bud

Edit: and there were two ways to “get it,” meaning “understand it,” not three. That’s quite a few comprehension errors in your effort to be critical of this post!

I’ve used Red Moon from f-droid for a good while, I like it.

Huh?

The comment is almost illegible. Funny!

I don’t think you understand, because you came out of left field to restate my point as “the only way to bring about systemic change is through Marxism.”

Wtf? Where did I say anything related to Marxism, let alone use the word?

I will reply to your quote:

There are other things like support for social justice and human rights, anti-imperialism and internationalism, desire for systemic change, secularism, opposition to traditional hierarchies, etc. Are you then going to tell me that these characteristics i have outlined are right wing? Or that they are only achievable by being Marxist or Anarchist?

No! Those things are only achievable through anticapitalism! Marxism and anarchism are examples of anticapitalist thought.

“Opposition to traditional hierarchies,” “desire for systemic change,” “anti-imperialism,” and “social justice” are hollow, offensive, and nonsensical when ignoring capitalism.

I’m not a Marxist, and you can call yourself whatever you like, but if you haven’t attained class consciousness enough to recognize that capitalism is a death cult, you’re a fucking liberal.

Friend, take the straight point as it’s delivered: capitalism is a system of oppression, and “liberals” support capitalism.

Leftists call those saying “this system of oppression would be perfect, with only some changes” liberals.

It’s actually “666”

Dammit this whole post was an ad pack it up boys

The bootlicking version of “why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?”

If he was a tighter it’d be a different story

… that is there question.

Can you remember the first time you felt insecure about your ability to come up with backstories? What was that like? And so on

Would you say what you’re seeking is “more intimacy,” up to, potentially, the most possible intimacy?

I would suggest looking at his different interests and getting curious. If you’re interested in the guy, it should be pretty easy to find reasons why this film or that game are endearingly-this-or-that in a way that makes you like and respect him even more.

Then, you bond over it; by trusting his taste (intimacy) enough to check out that show or whatever interest, you now have an opportunity to get deep (intimacy) into what you each individually felt (intimacy) about it, and maybe you felt something in common. That’s some foundation for intimacy.

carrying, in itself, makes others more unsafe, which is my point here.

I appreciate your point being made clear. Now, please apply the concept of “carrying (a gun) makes others more unsafe” to cars and knives, examples of obviously inherently dangerous tools.

The real issue for me is capitalism. Are you a liberal? Because your “point” is liberal propaganda. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.

This difference was the subject of my original comment. I see nothing being stated here beyond truisms.

The “safety” of those targeted for killing by killing tools or any tools used on purpose for defense or offense is a strange focus. The target of a tool used for killing being killed is not very safe, good observation?

“wildly understood”

I said widely.

I don’t expect to dissolve the biases between us, but if you are trying to understand my comment, pay attention to the focus on “relatively” and “perspective:”

Guns, and knives, and people, are inherently dangerous. That is a given, a truism. They are to be respected - humans for their innate value, and each for their capability to harm.

The risk of handling knives can be mitigated with respect, forethought, training, proper application, tool maintenance, etc. The fact that they are capable of hurting us should not be forgotten, but our relationship with them need not be dominated by it. In fact, with proper safety on the part of the handler, knives can be considered “relatively safe,” especially from a statistical standpoint.

The same can be said for guns. And people.

I appreciate that you qualified your stated opinion with “personally,” because I agree that this is a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, the word “safe” when applied to cars assumes we understand that traveling at 60+ MPH is itself more dangerous than standing still. Then, to call a certain car “safe” is to be using obvious relative terms; safer than this other car, rated highly by impartial safety experts, etc.

To wit: No one in a conversation about a car’s safety would genuinely say “sure, if I buy your new vehicle I’ll be better protected on the road than any other driver of a current production mid-size sedan, thanks to all these state-of-the-art safety features, but - pray tell - how ‘safe’ can you really call this car if could be stolen from me and used to run me down?” Or “this car doesn’t seem safe, I could walk to the store and not need rollover protection.”

I think guillotines would also work fine to illustrate the point. Guillotines are, of course, built to kill. Handled properly, I can easily imagine them being safe. If we put a rich man’s neck in it and he loses his head, that is the correct function of the tool.

Safety is widely understood as protection from inadvertent danger. The rich man’s death was not inadvertent. The car being stolen and used against you was not inadvertent. A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not. These tools are safe.

Luckily, though, it’s clearly an official Foot Locker Nike pistol, so false alarm

I’m not confident your interest is genuine, as your incredulity seems intent on maligning gun owners, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and for the edification of lemmy readers:

while carrying a gun at the front of your torso does generally provide slightly quicker drawing speed on trained individuals and all things being equal, the “level of quick access” is not usually the reason to prefer this style of carry. Rather, many that choose “appendix” carry tend to do so for ergonomics and comfort.

Also, “the gun itself is not quick access” is a misapprehension on your part; every feature I listed that you replied to, other than leaving the chamber empty, does not add any time to the deployment of the gun.

And if you are genuinely curious, you may be interested to know that because modern firearms are so incredibly safe (like modern cars - its the people using them that make them unsafe, unlike the guns and cars of the past which were much more inherently unsafe in design), leaving the chamber empty is usually not necessary or practiced.

They say that 50 years or so ago a method of drawing a pistol with an empty chamber and chambering a round in the same motion was made procedure by the IDF, as their weapons were coming from many disparate sources and shouldn’t be trusted to have functional firing pin safeties, etc., so they were trained to carry them with an empty chamber. Nowadays, carrying, drawing, and charging a pistol on an empty chamber is known as “Israeli carry” or “Israeli draw.”

Passive and active safeties, a trigger guard, a stiff trigger, and, for some, not having a round in the chamber.