GunFunZS

@UnrealCity @ConceptualJames Not really. His works are a rant. A lot of it is projection and strawman assuming what his caricature villain will do, and what is caricature villains motivations and reactions will be. Reading alternate chapters of Marx and Locke is very funny.

@ConceptualJames this might be an incredibly stupid question considering his massive influence, but is Marx actually that eloquent and persuasive? maybe it's just me being a staunch capitalist, but I can't ever imagine even being a young person and being taken in by such trash.

I'm increasingly becoming convinced that one cannot simply pick up and read philosophy safely, but this will be misread as me saying people shouldn't read philosophy or that I want to dictate how they read philosophy. The point I'm making is also especially true for the increasingly ideological philosophy that started to emerge in the later Renaissance period, through the Enlightenments, and certainly afterwards, especially in the Modern Era and since. The reason for this is instructive to my point (and requires elaboration). For example, while I do think most people should eventually read Marx to understand what he actually said and argued, I would recommend that literally NOBODY read Marx until they're at least conversant in the significant errors in thinking he presents. I'm not saying this to poison the well but because the well is actually poisonous, and knowing you're about to drink the poison is necessary for conducting a correct (and safe) reading of the text. In general, I'm against blank-slatism in reading philosophy, especially ideological philosophy. These texts do not exist in the academic ether as pure, unsullied expressions of ideas to be engaged on their own terms as they appear on the pages. They are profoundly otherwise, and knowing this matters a lot for how one engages such a text. I think it can generally be taken for granted, especially through the Medieval Period (though imperfectly), what an author's ideological dispositions and presuppositions would have been in this older stuff (which may reverse as we get back toward Antiquity). It is usually Catholic, in fact, although other stuff, including esoterica, existed. As we get to the Renaissance and Enlightenments (note the plural!), the idea of a return to a "universal" philosophy, which is in some sense broadly "secular" (or secular-ish) kind of emerges, and it sort of dominates by the time we're getting into the Modern Era and since. The idea emerges that people aren't speaking universal truths within a religion but universal truths without one, or without one in particular. That's a dangerous and important shift. When you pick up a piece of philosophy, there are a lot of assumptions baked in. There are also views and agendas, not some kind of blank-slate universal background such that the words on the page simply say what the words on the page seem to say, especially in the more esoteric thinkers, like the Romantics and the Idealists. I do not think we can rightly approach this kind of philosophy without understanding what's going on with the people who wrote it and the context in which they were writing. We should also be aware of esoteric hidden content or content that's meant to seduce the reader into an ideological frame while looking like it is merely stating facts (what Eric Voegelin called "grimoires," or books of spells and spellcasting). This sounds like I'm trying to impose something upon the text, but it's more accurate that I'm saying these texts actually require exegesis (and not eisegesis, but knowing generally, say, that a Communist book is full of crazy Communist shit that should be read extremely skeptically is a fair "lens" to apply). It's very similar to how the Reformation began to ask people to read the Bible. I don't know about you, but if you have ever picked up a Bible fairly naively and started to try to read it, it's not only really challenging but a ton of it just doesn't make sense. As the Bible was being written, its authors took for granted that the people who would be reading it (ultimately, Jews, then Christians) would have the underlying historical, geographical, and cultural context to know what an Amalekite is, for example. Without knowing this kind of stuff, the Bible is a confusing and at least slightly horrifying book. Atheists often get this pretty twisted. They do a "blank-slate" read of the Bible and see some pretty horrifying stuff, and when they sit down with an informed Christian or Jewish thinker or apologist who can explain the context, which usually makes it make contextual sense, they see it as covering up what seems to plainly be there. It's the atheist, though, who is reading the text wrong (naively), though, even though it is always possible for the religious person or apologist to be engaging in motivated reasoning in interpretation. Philosophy, even in the highest of the high Modern "post-Enlightenment" circumstances, is not written on a blank slate any more than human beings are blank slates. To read philosophy, especially of that era, in such a way is to read it completely wrongly, and it is therefore very often to get taken in by it, with all the negative connotation that phrase carries. One way to say this is that rather than being neutral, much philosophy (especially Enlightenment(s) and post-Enlightenment(s)) is heavily polemical while hiding the fact of being a polemic. Much is also "socio-esoteric," which is to say some form of esotericism, occultism, or magic, posing as though it is not by appearing to be some kind of socio-political or socio-economic analysis. If you don't understand these things, you cannot read these works correctly and will fall for them. This is why I get uncomfortable when I see things like the video going viral today, ostensibly encouraging us to read more deeply in the Western canon and to develop a broader and deeper vocabulary from that reading while casually recommending the work of people like Schiller, Carlyle, and Ruskin. Those works were not chosen arbitrarily (alongside Plato). They align, and where they point carries an agenda. The suggestions weren't made casually but deliberately, and the purpose of suggesting them is left hidden, as though you'd have to be crazy to point it out. Schiller, to be fair enough, as a kind of romantic German idealist, has important work he did on beauty and its relevance to human society and development. Carlyle and Ruskin, however, for whatever else they said, are some of the most vicious early critics of free societies and free enterprise ("capitalism") in the writing of the time. Their inclusion in the list was deliberate. It was to subtly introduce to people who care about restoring "the West" that abandoning the post-Enlightenment(s) projects, including capitalism, is a necessary part of the project. Someone who is unfamiliar with those ideas is not likely to engage them with the necessary skeptical lens, and thus there's a propaganda being done. I don't like it. I don't like it when anyone does it, in fact, for any hidden purpose, passing off sweeping philosophical (ish) nonsense like it's some kind of neutral presentation and exploration of ideas when it actually has ideological, polemical, or even mystifying purposes.

@cold_wolfgang2 @mylocalgunshop @RecoilMag Kevin Brittenham feels left out.

@mylocalgunshop @RecoilMag Rare Greed and b&t teaming up is wild...was codey Wilson unavailable 😭

Per Recoil Magazine: “Rare Breed Triggers and B&T USA Announce Strategic Partnership: B&T USA SPC9, GHM9 and GHM45 platforms will now be offered with the patented Rare Breed FRT-SG3 Forced Reset Trigger installed directly from the factory.” Pretty cool to see companies start offering FRTs from the factory

@Real_CandRsenal Boo

@GunFunZS Traffic makes them into pointless left hand exercise machines.

How do you know Othais is at the indoor range?

@Mrgunsngear It may be high brass but high breast means nothing. Standard velocity for a 9 pellet double up back as 1325. This is weenie tactical stuff.

Fiocchi high brass #00 12ga buckshot for $0.44/rd currently here: mrgunsngear.org/Fiocchi12ga0044 #shotgun #buckshot #HomeDefense

@Kimmich_00 @Acts17David Yeah he really had to sanpaku eyes. I wonder if he was doing that on purpose.

@Acts17David You look like you're straight out of Full Metal Jacket

Twenty-six years ago today, I was released from prison. 😍

@MikeWingerii Not the land pirate and slaver?!

Mohammed had sex with a 9 year-old girl.

@DabsMalone Chain shot at the pelvis.

What would be the most effective method to incapacitate one of these?

@Eric_Schmitt So what's the remedy?

ALOHA means hello, goodbye and evidently judicial insurrection. The Hawaii Supreme Ct just published a political manifesto masquerading as a judicial opinion. It calls SCOTUS racist, treats its rulings as “white noise” and declares itself beyond federal instruction.

@legalstyleblog @EWess92 Also Mr. Eddins appears to be Ron Weasley's rat.

on things I notice, it's weird to me that they use the spelling with the okina (looks like an apostrophe) when the constitutional spelling is "Hawaii." Hawaii is free to change her name to reflect the Hawaiian language (I have no issue at all with that), but until then… they aren't using the actual name of the State given by its supreme law

The Spirit of Aloha rages against the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mad not only about the result in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court issues an unhinged attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I haven't ever seen something like this. And it's not good.

@EWess92 Well I too share disdain for Hawaii's recent constitutional traditions.

Now for the page revealing the cause is the tantrum. Wolford v. Lopez and Hawaii's attempt to evade the Second Amendment. It was stymied. These justices are not happy. In a spoke -word-poem style list of grievances, they attack the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence. Wild!

@EWess92 Citing Dred Scott is a choice.

About 72 pages into a decision about certain post-conviction review rights under the Hawaii constitution, the Hawaii Supreme Court shifts its attention to Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court. It starts by accusing the Supremes of "not honoring" the Civil Rights era / 1954

@MorosKostas Good point.

Judge Freeman is only about 48 too. Prime SCOTUS age. By doing this, she killed her chance of ever getting a SCOTUS seat. Everytown will never let a Dem president pick her. She had to know that going in, and still ruled correctly. BASED.

@themushroompunk @Dexerto Seriously they could just sell like a 1993 Ford festiva with an airbag and ABS for $12,000, They would print infinite money. 55mpg.

@Dexerto Everyone's trying to crack the cheap car that sucks ass market.

A new $15,000 EV can talk, stream TV and even park itself remotely, but it can't be driven on the highway It tops out at just 25 mph

@DocStrangelove2 And yet we kill thousands of babies on the mere possibility that they might have a minor birth defect, and most of our society doesn't care.

Nations would burn if any would raise a hand against Jimothy.

@MorosKostas I do appreciate how concise see she was in dismissing category mismatches as such. I'm still waiting for a judge to say the Bowie knife laws are a poor fit when repeating Allen revolvers were popular as a contemporary unprohibited analog.

@MorosKostas Yeah but Benitez actually came up with the articulation of the framework and made sure that he developed the hell out of the record so people couldn't pretend to misunderstand him. I don't think any other 2A judge has done as much. This judge accurately followed precedent.

I see your Saint Benitez memes and raise you with this Biden-appointed judge being the surprising author of the first circuit court opinion killing AWBs and mag bans.

@zmantech03 @MorosKostas Why do you hate us?

@MorosKostas Inb4 Jackson surprises us all and writes the Viramontes opinion

@AG211382431 @MorosKostas Barret has multiple good rulings on key stuff, along with the fumbled.

@MorosKostas Fuck, I think she would have been a better choice than Barret LMAO.