3 ms·
Yeah, I realize that was dangerously close to ragebait territory, sorry about that. It's just that I saw it as an opportunity to glimpse into the reasoning mad
by xorcist 1y ago
Yeah, I realize that was dangerously close to ragebait territory, sorry about that.
It's just that I saw it as an opportunity to glimpse into the reasoning made and I couldn't find myself with a charitable interpretation that didn't include something very similar to that statement, so why not pop it out there to find out more what the person disagrees with?
Feel free to ignore the question, it probably won't change anyone's view anyway.
- bawolff 1y agoI don't know why people find the reasoning so shocking. It plays out the same in pretty much every country. Look at US during 9/11 or world war 2. Some sort of attack happens, people get scared (often legitamently), they support measures they think will get their security back. Sometimes those measures are reasonable, sometimes they are more wtf, more often they are somewhere in between. As the saying goes: hurt people hurt people. That's not to say they are neccesarily illogical. There are real threats out there and sometimes the options to defend one self are limitted to unsaoury things. Most people if given the choice between shooting someone or being shot themselves, chose to shoot the other person. No matter where you live, you have probably seen people react this way, even if just on a very small scale.