4 ms·

If, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you then I honestly don’

If, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you then I honestly don’t care what you think about this issue. You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over. He creates strawman critics to ridicule and rant against, which also will dissuade anyone he disagrees with from reading on and will inflame all sides, but he also claims to want reasonable, open-minded discussion. Another missed opportunity to discuss something reasonably and bring people together. If that was really his intent, it's hard to believe a professional journalist - a professional communicator - would choose the words above. I hope it works out better than that but I don't have unlimited time to read everything.

ufmace 10y ago
If you think anti-gun-rights advocates attributing gun ownership to "mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you " is a strawman, you might like to read this link: http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. Or just read this thread. For some reason, anti-gun-rights people seem to love to talk about how to take people's guns, and then call gun owners paranoid for thinking that people want to take their guns.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. You can find hundreds of Twitter posts saying just about anything; we could justify any behavior on that basis. > Or just read this thread. I skimmed and read a large part of this discussion, and I don't see any comments of that sort. Maybe there are some but there can't be very many.
jonstokes 10y ago
Yeah dude, you obviously haven't seen the latest Samantha Bee rant that has been shared all over my feeds as OMG SMACKDOWN. It has it all, including the penis size stuff.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Responding in kind only adds to the noise - which can provide no marginal benefit; there are plenty of others already doing the exact same thing - and it obscures the signal. For me, it obscured any signal in your article. I don't care about Samantha Bee, whoever she is, but apparently, like a contagion, her noise spread to your article. That hard-to-detect signal is all that matters; it's so precious on the Internet; we need to curate it, take care of it. The rest is just "sound and fury".

ufmace 10y ago

If you think anti-gun-rights advocates attributing gun ownership to "mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you " is a strawman, you might like to read this link: http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. Or just read this thread. For some reason, anti-gun-rights people seem to love to talk about how to take people's guns, and then call gun owners paranoid for thinking that people want to take their guns.

hackuser 10y ago
> It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. You can find hundreds of Twitter posts saying just about anything; we could justify any behavior on that basis. > Or just read this thread. I skimmed and read a large part of this discussion, and I don't see any comments of that sort. Maybe there are some but there can't be very many.

jonstokes 10y ago

Yeah dude, you obviously haven't seen the latest Samantha Bee rant that has been shared all over my feeds as OMG SMACKDOWN. It has it all, including the penis size stuff.

hackuser 10y ago
Responding in kind only adds to the noise - which can provide no marginal benefit; there are plenty of others already doing the exact same thing - and it obscures the signal. For me, it obscured any signal in your article. I don't care about Samantha Bee, whoever she is, but apparently, like a contagion, her noise spread to your article. That hard-to-detect signal is all that matters; it's so precious on the Internet; we need to curate it, take care of it. The rest is just "sound and fury".