Please, go, find any evidence of mass shootings carried out by basically random, deranged individuals in the USSR, with their own firearms,.or firearms that they somehow obtained in a personal capacity, for private use.
Genuinely, if you can find anything about that, I’d love to hear about it.
But you can’t just imply/assert something happened with literally 0 evidence, and flip the burden of proof into an assbackwards state.
Yes, the USSR definitely did use the mass armed power of the state in many ways that were very bad.
But… thats not the same thing as broad individual access to firearms leading to rogue actors going on mass shooting sprees.
The USSR had massive gun control for private citizens… as best I can tell, you could pretty much only own something like a smoothbore, single or double barrel, break action hunting shotgun, as a private citizen in the USSR.
I’m don’t even think most average people were allowed to privately own a pistol, you’d have to hold some kind of position in either the military or state to be able to do that, again, as best I can tell.
Anything beyond that would be highly restricted, criminalized.
So… yeah. It would seem to follow that if private access to firearms is heavily restricted, you don’t get a bunch of private individuals having a uh, terminal ballistically enchanced public crashout.
I’m not gonna pretend I’m an expert on the history of this subject, in the USSR… but you shouldn’t either.
‘People I don’t like are bad, so that gives me free reign to make up baseless claims about them’…
… thats a significant reason why people who don’t like tankies… don’t like tankies.
Its because they make disingenous arguments and argue via implications that can’t be proved or disproved.
You’re doing the rhetorical equivalent of ‘just asking questions’.
Please provide either some actual evidence, or at least a logically compelling argument that what you are asserting/implying … actually happened.
literally just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_Soviet_Union
My criticism is not about just schools, it’s about the opaque way authoritarianism works. And either way anything positive about the USSR is undermined by the millions killed by it, just like anything positive done by the US is undermined by its imperialism and capitalism, which also killed millions. At the end of the day, it’s really just simple as “don’t support mass murderers and people who associate with their power”. I really don’t get how people can just… ignore all the deaths.
Oh ok, so there’s considerably less than one a year.
You know, due to gun control.
Compared to the modern US with over one a day.
Saying… anything positive about X is undermined by negative things about X is just completely missing the point… well, any potentially productive point.
The USSR did bad things, authoritarianism is bad.
Uh huh. Yep.
Apply that logic to any other society, ever.
Ok, I guess we don’t have any societies where the state acts as a functional monopoly on the legitimate use of violence that are worth discussing as examples of anything good.
Thus apparently there are no examples of nearly any societies, ever, worth further investigation or comparison or potential, at least partial, emulation.
… Am I misunderstanding you, or is that your actual position?
Or are you just nonsenically picking on the USSR for a problem it did not really have in comparison to many other societies?
If your point is ‘mass violence enabled by the state is bad’… almost no one on lemmy is going to broadly disagree with that, no one is going to ignore all the deaths, other than I guess tankies and fascists.
Its a moot point (in the US legal system sense of moot point), its a pointless point to make, amongst people with functioning consciences.
But if you’re trying to have, I dunno, a conversation or commentary on …
… what would be an ideal way for modern society to handle the nearly completely unavoidable fact that firearms exist in a modern society? who should have them, or be able to have them, under what circumstances, under which conditions? …
… then the framing of your original comment is completely unproductive and banal.
It asserts a laughably false equivalence with no evidence.
And yes, it is still a laughably false equivalence to point at evidence of something like a 1000 degree of magnitude difference in number of yearly mass shootings… as … evidence of equivalence.
It is not as simple as ‘Don’t support mass murderers.’
One person’s murderer is another person’s justified hero, dutiful soldier, person just doing their job, justified revolutionary, despicable terrorist, etc.
Please, go, find any evidence of mass shootings carried out by basically random, deranged individuals in the USSR, with their own firearms,.or firearms that they somehow obtained in a personal capacity, for private use.
Genuinely, if you can find anything about that, I’d love to hear about it.
But you can’t just imply/assert something happened with literally 0 evidence, and flip the burden of proof into an assbackwards state.
Your opponent did then provide the evidence you asked for and then you dismissed it. A proper play would’ve meant admitting that these events did happen after being presented evidence. You could’ve carried your point afterwards and talked about the difference in scale, but you undermined your own argument by dismissing theirs.
I think that’s like a ten yard penalty and a time out, take a breather and come back working together on finding a good point through dialog instead of fighting, seems like you could reach each other if you wanted.
I then did the thing, went forward with the rest of the discussion, considering the evidence they presented, referring to it, and making comparisons with it.
How could I discuss and make quantitative comparisons of that set of events to others… without implicitly, obviously, accepting it as existing and valid?
Was I supposed to stop and profusely congratulate them for linking a wiki page?
You’ve essentially penalized me for not ‘admitting those events did happen’ in an undefined yet apparently specific manner you find appropriate.
I acknowledged its existence by contending with it.
Further… they said 0 publicized shootings.
Go look at the references for the shootings … many of them are contemporaneous coverage in some kind publicized media, at least one had public a memorial service occur to commemerate the victims, not long after the shootings.
So… no. They did actually prove their claim. They in fact explicitly disproved it.
All that is required to disprove a claim of 0 publicized shootings is… a single publicized shooting, contemporaneously published if we assume that as a reasonable contextual specificied definition.
And… they… provided that evidence, themselves.
Beyond that, the initial claim itself is still just a reversal of how burden of proof works, a fallacious approach to discourse.
I’m beginning to think you’re not really a referee, in fact… you’re nothing but a corny shit poster.
=P
… but I actually can provide non self defeating evidence of that seemingly baseless assertion.
I’m just choosing not to, because that would seem to me to be excessively mean.
Ok, so you don’t have a discussion about how guns should work in a society.
You just want to use a dubious rhetorical tactic to assert that genocide is bad.
Yes, we, we all agree that genocide is bad, amongst the vast majority of people with consciences.
This isn’t generally a point worth making, its virtue signalling.
Does… communal firearm training… necessarily result in genocide?
Is that what has happened in every society that has at least a temporary period of mandatory military service for broad swathes of society?
I’m trying to have a discussion, you just want to keep avoiding that discussion, and keep reasserting a point I have already accepted… because that point is so obvious it barely needs to be stated.
Again: I agree with you that genocide is bad. I don’t support or endorse any of the pogroms or purges or manufactured famines or gulag archipelagos of the USSR, those are all atrocities.
But, what do you mean you will shun any power that has a basis in genocide?
Like, you’ll never step foot in the USA? Or Canada? Or nearly any Western country? You’ll boycott all companies that currently, actively participate in genocide?
Or are you juat saying you think genocide is icky and bad?
Something in between?
Something else?
Also I think you’re the the first person on lemmy who’s called me a tankie, which is funny to me because I’ve been banned from large sections of ml and hexbear for pointing out that the Pooh Bear Xi Jinping meme actually originated in China, and is actually a homegrown symbol of mockery of and resistance against Xi and the PRC, not a racist meme used by Westerners to attack China and Chinese people…
…generally I’m the one getting into arguments with actual tankies, who will actually defend some of those genocides and other horrific acts done in the name of some vanguard party or what not.
But I guess to you, tankie is just anyone you perceive as being mean, when the topic of discussion is the USSR.
Ok then if you can’t take things I’m good humor, I’ll say it directly. You’re acting like an ass and flying off the handle, whether you’re right or not, and maybe need to fucking chill.
I did take things in good humor, that’s why I made a joke at the end.
I’m sorry if you can’t handle having your ideas being directly interrogated amd critiqued, maybe you shouldn’t be a self appointed referee of debates, maybe you shouldn’t have inserted yourself into this situation for invalid reasons, maybe its not polite to do that, and you should chill out a bit?
Look.
I also don’t like tankies.
But wtf are you talking about?
Please, go, find any evidence of mass shootings carried out by basically random, deranged individuals in the USSR, with their own firearms,.or firearms that they somehow obtained in a personal capacity, for private use.
Genuinely, if you can find anything about that, I’d love to hear about it.
But you can’t just imply/assert something happened with literally 0 evidence, and flip the burden of proof into an assbackwards state.
Yes, the USSR definitely did use the mass armed power of the state in many ways that were very bad.
But… thats not the same thing as broad individual access to firearms leading to rogue actors going on mass shooting sprees.
The USSR had massive gun control for private citizens… as best I can tell, you could pretty much only own something like a smoothbore, single or double barrel, break action hunting shotgun, as a private citizen in the USSR.
I’m don’t even think most average people were allowed to privately own a pistol, you’d have to hold some kind of position in either the military or state to be able to do that, again, as best I can tell.
Anything beyond that would be highly restricted, criminalized.
So… yeah. It would seem to follow that if private access to firearms is heavily restricted, you don’t get a bunch of private individuals having a uh, terminal ballistically enchanced public crashout.
I’m not gonna pretend I’m an expert on the history of this subject, in the USSR… but you shouldn’t either.
‘People I don’t like are bad, so that gives me free reign to make up baseless claims about them’…
… thats a significant reason why people who don’t like tankies… don’t like tankies.
Its because they make disingenous arguments and argue via implications that can’t be proved or disproved.
You’re doing the rhetorical equivalent of ‘just asking questions’.
Please provide either some actual evidence, or at least a logically compelling argument that what you are asserting/implying … actually happened.
literally just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_Soviet_Union My criticism is not about just schools, it’s about the opaque way authoritarianism works. And either way anything positive about the USSR is undermined by the millions killed by it, just like anything positive done by the US is undermined by its imperialism and capitalism, which also killed millions. At the end of the day, it’s really just simple as “don’t support mass murderers and people who associate with their power”. I really don’t get how people can just… ignore all the deaths.
Oh ok, so there’s considerably less than one a year.
You know, due to gun control.
Compared to the modern US with over one a day.
Saying… anything positive about X is undermined by negative things about X is just completely missing the point… well, any potentially productive point.
The USSR did bad things, authoritarianism is bad.
Uh huh. Yep.
Apply that logic to any other society, ever.
Ok, I guess we don’t have any societies where the state acts as a functional monopoly on the legitimate use of violence that are worth discussing as examples of anything good.
Thus apparently there are no examples of nearly any societies, ever, worth further investigation or comparison or potential, at least partial, emulation.
… Am I misunderstanding you, or is that your actual position?
Or are you just nonsenically picking on the USSR for a problem it did not really have in comparison to many other societies?
If your point is ‘mass violence enabled by the state is bad’… almost no one on lemmy is going to broadly disagree with that, no one is going to ignore all the deaths, other than I guess tankies and fascists.
Its a moot point (in the US legal system sense of moot point), its a pointless point to make, amongst people with functioning consciences.
But if you’re trying to have, I dunno, a conversation or commentary on …
… what would be an ideal way for modern society to handle the nearly completely unavoidable fact that firearms exist in a modern society? who should have them, or be able to have them, under what circumstances, under which conditions? …
… then the framing of your original comment is completely unproductive and banal.
It asserts a laughably false equivalence with no evidence.
And yes, it is still a laughably false equivalence to point at evidence of something like a 1000 degree of magnitude difference in number of yearly mass shootings… as … evidence of equivalence.
It is not as simple as ‘Don’t support mass murderers.’
One person’s murderer is another person’s justified hero, dutiful soldier, person just doing their job, justified revolutionary, despicable terrorist, etc.
Sorry mate, I had to call in the reff
You are quoted as saying
Your opponent did then provide the evidence you asked for and then you dismissed it. A proper play would’ve meant admitting that these events did happen after being presented evidence. You could’ve carried your point afterwards and talked about the difference in scale, but you undermined your own argument by dismissing theirs.
I think that’s like a ten yard penalty and a time out, take a breather and come back working together on finding a good point through dialog instead of fighting, seems like you could reach each other if you wanted.
I did admit the evidence existed.
In the first couple of sentences.
Did you miss those, ref?
I then did the thing, went forward with the rest of the discussion, considering the evidence they presented, referring to it, and making comparisons with it.
How could I discuss and make quantitative comparisons of that set of events to others… without implicitly, obviously, accepting it as existing and valid?
Was I supposed to stop and profusely congratulate them for linking a wiki page?
You’ve essentially penalized me for not ‘admitting those events did happen’ in an undefined yet apparently specific manner you find appropriate.
I acknowledged its existence by contending with it.
Further… they said 0 publicized shootings.
Go look at the references for the shootings … many of them are contemporaneous coverage in some kind publicized media, at least one had public a memorial service occur to commemerate the victims, not long after the shootings.
So… no. They did actually prove their claim. They in fact explicitly disproved it.
All that is required to disprove a claim of 0 publicized shootings is… a single publicized shooting, contemporaneously published if we assume that as a reasonable contextual specificied definition.
And… they… provided that evidence, themselves.
Beyond that, the initial claim itself is still just a reversal of how burden of proof works, a fallacious approach to discourse.
I’m beginning to think you’re not really a referee, in fact… you’re nothing but a corny shit poster.
=P
… but I actually can provide non self defeating evidence of that seemingly baseless assertion.
I’m just choosing not to, because that would seem to me to be excessively mean.
Well it’s clear you’re not here to reason so I’m just gonna let you be a tankie
it also really is that simple
just don’t support genocide
don’t support powers that genocide
don’t support Israel, Russia, the USA, the Reich, the USSR, or any genocide-friendly power
show me proof that any power has basis in genocide and I will shun it
because that’s what normal people should do
genocide is bad and we should avoid supporting it
this is literally the most justified take ever and you’re still arguing against it
Ok, so you don’t have a discussion about how guns should work in a society.
You just want to use a dubious rhetorical tactic to assert that genocide is bad.
Yes, we, we all agree that genocide is bad, amongst the vast majority of people with consciences.
This isn’t generally a point worth making, its virtue signalling.
Does… communal firearm training… necessarily result in genocide?
Is that what has happened in every society that has at least a temporary period of mandatory military service for broad swathes of society?
I’m trying to have a discussion, you just want to keep avoiding that discussion, and keep reasserting a point I have already accepted… because that point is so obvious it barely needs to be stated.
Again: I agree with you that genocide is bad. I don’t support or endorse any of the pogroms or purges or manufactured famines or gulag archipelagos of the USSR, those are all atrocities.
But, what do you mean you will shun any power that has a basis in genocide?
Like, you’ll never step foot in the USA? Or Canada? Or nearly any Western country? You’ll boycott all companies that currently, actively participate in genocide?
Or are you juat saying you think genocide is icky and bad?
Something in between?
Something else?
Also I think you’re the the first person on lemmy who’s called me a tankie, which is funny to me because I’ve been banned from large sections of ml and hexbear for pointing out that the Pooh Bear Xi Jinping meme actually originated in China, and is actually a homegrown symbol of mockery of and resistance against Xi and the PRC, not a racist meme used by Westerners to attack China and Chinese people…
…generally I’m the one getting into arguments with actual tankies, who will actually defend some of those genocides and other horrific acts done in the name of some vanguard party or what not.
But I guess to you, tankie is just anyone you perceive as being mean, when the topic of discussion is the USSR.
deleted by creator
Ok then if you can’t take things I’m good humor, I’ll say it directly. You’re acting like an ass and flying off the handle, whether you’re right or not, and maybe need to fucking chill.
I did take things in good humor, that’s why I made a joke at the end.
I’m sorry if you can’t handle having your ideas being directly interrogated amd critiqued, maybe you shouldn’t be a self appointed referee of debates, maybe you shouldn’t have inserted yourself into this situation for invalid reasons, maybe its not polite to do that, and you should chill out a bit?
If that’s what you call I joke I feel pity for the few people you’ve interacted with at parties.
You’re still being an ass, so stop throwing a tantrum when someone said you were wrong and touch grass.