Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

professional-troublemaker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#31

Post by scarface74 »

cameldrv wrote: post #23
3chelon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.

The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones.

You mean like Canada?

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#32

Post by scarface74 »

the_trapper wrote: post #17
3chelon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Most of the western world is a gun-free zone, and there are very very few shootings, except in the US, where there are apparently more guns than people. Only in the US would it be argued that taking away guns would result in more shootings.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights.

I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#33

Post by the_trapper »

scarface74 wrote: post #32
the_trapper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.

The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#34

Post by scarface74 »

the_trapper wrote: post #33
scarface74 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. History shows that calls for sweeping gun control are often a canary for planned authoritarian infringements upon our other rights. I don't think people with guns are going to fare to well against a government with tanks, nuclear weapons, jets, etc.

The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.

That's the definition of "tyrannical rule". I'm not saying it's realistic to think that the government would go that far, but it's equally unrealistic to think that a few people with guns running around in the forest is going to be a match against the largest military in the world.

The Taliban has brainwashed people to think that they are dying to serve God and they and the VietCong had home court advantage. I don't think people who claimed to be "revolutionaries" in the US are that committed.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#35

Post by cameldrv »

scarface74 wrote: post #31
cameldrv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so, but he's still obviously right. The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. Maybe you want that in the U.S., fine. The fact is that guns are very prevalent and easily available in the U.S. Someone meaning to shoot up a school is not going to be thinking much about a gun possession in a school zone charge.

The rest of the western world has border controls and customs inspectors guarding the boundaries of their gun free zones. You mean like Canada?

Yes, Canada has border controls and customs inspectors... I honestly don't understand how this is controversial. It's fairly difficult to get a license to own an AR-15 type rifle in Canada, the magazine is restricted to 5 rounds, and if you try to cross the border with one, you have a reasonable chance of being arrested. Once in Canada, if you take your American AR-15 to a shooting range, you'll be arrested. In the U.S., for better or worse, most anyone can buy almost any kind of gun they want. For someone that intends to shoot up a school, the prohibition on taking their legally acquired gun into the school zone is the least of the crimes they're committing.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#36

Post by the_trapper »

scarface74 wrote: post #34
the_trapper wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Taliban seem to be holding their own, as did the Viet Cong before them, and if the US government is willing to nuke its own people we're beyond screwed.

That's the definition of "tyrannical rule". I'm not saying it's realistic to think that the government would go that far, but it's equally unrealistic to think that a few people with guns running around in the forest is going to be a match against the largest military in the world. The Taliban has brainwashed people to think that they are dying to serve God and they and the VietCong had home court advantage. I don't…

> the VietCong had home court advantage

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an American insurgency have the same thing going for it?

Do you really believe that the entire military would just follow orders and obliterate their countrymen? It didn't exactly play out like that 150 years ago.

Also, ignoring the whole rogue tyrannical government turning on its citizens thing for a moment, does a person not have the inalienable right to appropriate means to defend oneself?

The criminals will continue to have guns no matter what laws get passed to "just do something about gun violence" and law enforcement proved that they cannot be relied upon to protect us from this villainy.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#37

Post by ropeadopepope »

the_trapper wrote: post #2

What is up with the sudden intense push for all of this Orwellian censorship lately? Between this, Facebook, Google, and reddit trying to censor anything they deem to be wrongthink and the very hard push to deny American citizens their Second Amendment rights, I may have to consider purchasing some tin foil headgear. It's become open season on the Bill of Rights lately. It's starting to get more than just a little bi…

Population control. That's not the hard question. The hard question is: what's the endgame? Why does every country in the western world want their citizens mute and unable to defend themselves?

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#38

Post by ropeadopepope »

mr_overalls wrote: post #20
the_trapper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President.

Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#39

Post by ropeadopepope »

3chelon wrote: post #26
the_trapper wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the issue is a lot more complicated than that. I'm going to make the assumption that you are not from the United States. In a lot of ways the United States is not like the rest of the western world. The right to bear arms was so important to our founding fathers that it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution (right after the guarantee of freedom of speech, religion, etc.). The fact that American c…

You're right in guessing I'm not American, and I do appreciate you have a fairly unique situation there with the Second Amendment and the sheer number of guns already in circulation. But, a while ago everyone outside the US thought it was only a few right-wing NRA extremists that would claim arming teachers was the solution to the school shootings problem. But now you have a president threatening to pass it into law.…

> If fewer guns is really not the answer, then how many guns do you think you'll need to eradicate gun violence?

None. Guns are a tool. If more guns would end all violence, then we just need to hire more cops and flood the street with them. Recent events have shown that is clearly not the answer. But, leaving law abiding people unable to defend themselves and their family against an armed criminal class isn't the answer either.

Re: Microsoft Bans “Offensive Language” from Skype

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #38
mr_overalls wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea was that so long as we retained the right to bear arms we would be able to keep tyranny in check. How's that working out for you? The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Possessing the means of insurrection doesn't entail having the judgment to use it appropriately.

> The vast majority of my 2nd Amendment-supporting friends seem to support Trump, whose authoritarian statements and actions are like nothing seen in a US President. Except for Obama, you mean? Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.

> Trump hasn't done anything so far that Obama hasn't also done.

This is obviously literally false (virtually all of Trump's official acts have been things that Obama did not do), and I can't see any obvious relevant non-literal sense where it is true.

Even in a narrow sense of authoritarian approaches to gun rights, the Trump bump stock ban is an action that was specifically rejected by the Obama Administration, not on policy grounds, but because it exceeded the power of the executive branch without legislative change.

Post reply on HN