#something tells me you can't murder your way to ending fascism

[13thpythagoras]

#lol #history lesson time #the french revolution yes they offed the royals #but then came napoleon who put europe thru a long era of fascism #of course they killed julius caesar #only to watch caesar augustus and every roman emperor afterwards rule as emperor for life #something tells me you can't murder your way to ending fascism #could be wrong maybe history doesn't repeat itself

[weprywepry]

Hatred never ends. It's a bit absurd, absurd in the narrative sense of the word. How can we expect a story about the endless cycle of violence to do anything other than perpetuate that violence? Either AOT is wrong, and there actually is some way to prevent people from killing each other, or the series will end up as just another part of the killing.

I remember defending AOT against people that criticized its portrayal of fascism. Some of those criticisms are, still, to me very hollow. Like that one Polygon article which can basically be summed up by *"guys i think there might be fascist subtext to a story explicitly about fascism"*. That much is just a kind of trolling. But there is the more serious matter of whether or not the show accidentally encourages the sort of hatred it displays.

"You can’t choose where the cat sleeps."

"There is no such thing as an anti-war film."

No matter how talented and well minded an artist is, there is no way you can actually *make* your audience react a certain way. I'm sure there are neo-Nazis out there that enjoy watching Schindler's List. If people are stupid enough to actually *do* the things portrayed in media, then why should we be surprised by their reactions to the media? There's no way AOT could kill fascism. But still, for how intelligent the story is, I wonder if that just doesn't even matter.

It is also very stupid at times (like the S1-S2 openings), but those seem unintelligent only by how easily they are taken out of context. I think the narrative structure of Attack on Titan relies on building up expectation and then dismantling them in such a way that is revealing about ourselves. The Titans are presented as an absolute, unifying, and indiscriminate evil. The Titans are actually deeply tragic beings that are the product of human choices. This may teach an audience to not trust such narratives. That sort of "bait and switch" relies heavily on the "switch." If you only ever are exposed to certain parts of AOT (like just the action or overly dramatic AMVs), then its easy to get the wrong message.

But it's hard to blame AOT or Isayama for that. Asking an author to not allow that may as well be asking an author to not tell stories at all. It's inevitable, even more so with popularly. It's hard to tell a truth about propoganda without enabling the spread of that propoganda. Context matters, but people are inevitably lazy. It's just the law of large numbers. That isn't to say there's no use in trying to provide context. An audience can be lured into a critical experience with a piece of media. But there will always be bad actors, and those bad actors will be just as cunning.

But as a more fundamental flaw with AOT itself rather than art in general, oh my god. What the fuck is the ending.

Here's my two cents:

Armin hates himself. Even before becoming a mass murderer, he viewed himself as inadequate and undeserving of respect. That self hatred never left him and never was resolved. Becoming a soldier allowed him to quell it and act rationally according to his objective, but the self hatred was always still there.

For him, to thank Eren is an expression of his self-hatred. He sees himself as at the same level of moral fault and that they both deserve the same fate. Eren is undoubtedly *worse* than Armin (80% of the worlds population), but Armin still considers himself just as culpable. So his friendliness with Eren is a sardonic, cynical expression of his own hopelessness.

This is the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. Even if this *was* an intended subtext, I think the more honest interpretation is that Isayama just got tired and lazy. The theme of "those who can't abandon anything can't change anything" needed to be reincorporated, and this was a giant flashing neon sign indicating that. Eren did certainly change something.

What I want to say is that, by this point in the story, the notion of positive change through sacrifice had been disproven. There is no common enemy to humanity; humanity is its own enemy. So "tatakae" is no longer about promoting a greater good, but promoting one's own interest over others.

"Fight! Fight to survive!"

has a very different tone from,

"As long as we have unbending convictions, a clash is inevitable. There is but one thing to do. Fight."

I wish i could say all that.

But far too much credence is given to the idea that the Rumbling is justifiable. Hange says, "I'll be damned before I justify genocide." But at almost every step, the Rumbling is presented not as a moral apocalypse, but as a solution to a problem. This is absurd. Erwin counsels Levi that, "No one will know how things will turn out." And yet these two outcomes, let Paradis be destroyed or let Eren destroy the world are presented as the only two options. Even worse, that this is supposedly the case is supposedly *the fault* of Hange and Armin and Jean and everyone else. Floch saying that Paradis will drown in a sea of blood is propoganda. This propoganda is treated as if it is the unquestionable truth.

I think Isayama wanted a moral dilemma for the characters to ponder (save ourselves or save the world), but got lazy along the way. That dilemma, "us vs. them," is never true and is used to justify atrocity in the real world. Violence never ends, and the us's and the them's change to fit the needs of whatever cruelty needs justification. I hope that Isayama knows this. It’s present in the work already. But here it vanishes in favor of a simplistic, cliche narrative. Laziness, when dealing with subject matter as sensitive as this, has a real cost. And it's a bummer beyond all other bummers that this is how the story ends.

#attack on titan #shingeki no kyojin #help me

[alightineverydarkness]

October 9th, 2023

I'll try to write while I still have the sanity to do so.

So, the wonderful people at NTS Radio have just announced a list of new residents, which includes a Russian musician — and one of the most miserable ones, Yana Kedrina, better known as Kedr Livanskiy. Her existence has been largely okay in fascist times — she has been docile and regime-friendly enough that she even gets invited to play at events funded by President Putin's Fund, seemingly (well, the Presidential Fund For Cultural Initiatives, at the festival Novatoria, and another festival, whose name escapes me, was mentioned in the comments). She knows full well how incriminating and pro-fascist this makes her look — in fact, I have a screenshot of her requesting her fans take videos of only her "singing head" at Novatoria on her Telegram channel, so that the banner "SUPPORTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL FUND FOR CULTURAL INITIATIVES" right behind her can be at least cropped out of frame. She also, embarrassingly, discouraged people from filming the name of the festival, Novatoria (not everyone obliged — that's why I have screenshots of her playing there). I guess her real life under fascism destroys the fairy-like magic that she so desperately chases on her social media, in her pictures always smiling, always dancing, always charming and carefree. I am so sick of this cowardly bullshit, of these people hoping someone doesn't notice who they really are, always hiding, always lying. I am so, so sick of this shit.

Upon my comment about how inviting a seemingly pro-Putin artist, whose life hasn't even remotely been affected by a war she allows, is probably not cool, and speaking to her about her politics (does she have any?) would probably be "a thrill", she posted a story about how she was going to share the "happy news" that she is now a resident at NTS Radio, but "the Ukrainians have commenced shitting all over me, so there is no happy news". She also alludes to some kind of slander — I assume the only thing that is relatively debatable is her like or dislike of Putin. Here, it is important to point out that like or dislike of Putin by a Russian is completely irrelevant to me. Whether Yana Kedrina is an ardent Putinite or a "dissident" who is just quiet as a mouse and takes some bloody money from fascists from time to time, is of no consequence to me — bullets still fly the same; it is simply a convenient indicator. Her attitude towards the war she allows (which I have not seen her express anywhere at all) does not stop the rockets and tanks her taxes paid for. It doesn't matter what she thinks of Putin in her private, unpublished moments, the only thing that matters is what she does, because the only thing that matters to me is ending the war, saving Ukrainian lives. Like I already said, the only hope of being a "good Russian" these people have is literally becoming a soldier that is the equal and opposite force to one of the thousands of Russian soldiers currently murdering us. That's it — it's too late for posts, for charity donations (not that she made any); the genocide has already long begun. The only answer possible to it is stopping the Russian Army in the only way they have shown to understand — by force. There's no talking them back out of it.

And I could give two fucks about what some singer, whose music is of no interest to me, thinks way deep down inside about whether I deserve to be killed or not. I want actions. I wanted them for 20 months.

Hypothetically, let's say, she at least posted something about the war once in a while. Let us say, on her hollow and "magical" profile, where you can't even tell anything is happening at all, two words appear, the oh-so-difficult for your dissidents НЕТ ВОЙНЕ ("NO TO WAR"). Let's even say her whole profile was filled with pictures of us, with evidence of war crimes, with screenshots of donations, with regret, guilt, understanding. That wouldn't even be close to make it okay to invite a Russian artist as your resident, my friends at NTS. It would make it seem like you can basically ignore fascists coming to power, finance them, make deals with them, and then just post a little bit on the internet and it's all cool.

Let's say she never played a Putin festival — because that was never my main issue with her. She had played multiple times in annexed Crimea, entering it from Russia, which is generally a big no-no in terms of not only the way Ukrainians see you (as a fascist supporter), but even in terms of international law. Let's say she never did that either. How come it's even remotely okay to invite a Russian to do anything these days? How come it's okay to reward people for being cowards?

I think a very important consideration that people don't usually take into account is the question of "what would it take for a Ukrainian to live like this?". Meaning, what would it take for a Ukrainian in 2023 to live like the ignorant coward Yana Kedrina does: have no friends or relatives cruelly, intentionally murdered; lead a carefree life without daily air raids, shellings, interruptions to sleep, work, rest; to make music that is largely disconnected from any negative emotion, largely fantasy-world-based; to work with NTS at all? None of this is possible, I'm afraid, possibly save for being an NTS resident — not that they would offer this (there were no Ukrainians announced as residents).

I was invited by a producer I know to record a guest mix for NTS around the same time Kedr Livanskiy was playing the Putin fest, in August of 2023. I replied that in the military I just have my iPhone, and there is no time, no possible way to record anything, to even begin thinking about it. It's funny how the people who are responsible for the war can be full-time NTS residents and the innocent people (and I also consider myself a much better producer) can eat shit and die for all they care.

And lastly, I guess, I'd like to say that I have never seen a Russian take criticism from a Ukrainian adequately. They never acknowledge any wrongdoing, no matter what we say and how factual, to-the-point we can be. It's always "oh I'm getting shat on by Ukrainians/they're all bots/it's all trolling/that’s racist/you’re a Nazi/liar/and I used to support Ukraine and this is how you treat me/how dare you".

All our criticisms of Russians are systemic, not personal, yet all they hear is an attack, never a call to action — because action is, for them, unimaginable at all.

Good luck to NTS Radio on their future endeavors with Russians and the utterly mediocre music they make and will continue making. I fully understand that the brilliant, exhilarating music I will keep making after we win would, certainly, seem a bit out of place.

P.S. After I posted about this on Instagram, someone reached out and told me that in the early days of the war they were discussing a possibility of a new show on NTS, but their condition was that they would not put on music by Russians, or artists that have not expressed their opposition to the war. As they tell me, the people at NTS took a long time to think this over, and finally sent back a morose reply that claimed they were uncomfortable with such a (astonishingly radical in it's logic and reason) concept.

[tyrannuspitch]

sometimes it rlly does hit me that i have a fundamentally different relationship to these films from the average viewer. a while ago i came across some random meta, and the writer say saying that loki was, like, representative of fascism or selfishness or something (something i don't disagree with, even if i also see him as Containing Multitudes), but then they casually added "that's why it's so satisfying to see him get hulk-smashed at the end of the avengers".

and like. this was total news to me.

like... it's....... it's what???

i mean - even in a non-villain-apologist way, even when i was 15 and (i think) watching the avengers for the first time without context... i can't recall ever feeling any way about that scene that wasn't on the spectrum from second-hand embarrassment to pity to outright tragedy.

like, for one thing, it's underwhelming. when it's just loki and the hulk in a room together it's such an easy win. there's literally no competition and everyone knows it - loki's last scrap of defiance is shouting at the hulk, not even trying to fight him. he is very nearly literally asking for it.

and for another... loki is so childish in that scene. you can tell he's backed into a corner, at the end of his rope, regressing. his hope has run out and all his worst memories are happening again. he says, "i will not be bullied." BULLIED. even if you hate the man, it's objectively pitiful.

it's just hard to see it as some righteous, satisfying victory when loki is so clearly and painfully the underdog in this specific confrontation. i couldn't help but feel for him, even when all i felt was embarrassment.

and now, with full context, even though it is objectively a little silly, i honestly find it horrifying and hard to watch. because regardless of what needs to be done and what loki may or may not "deserve", this is the last thing he *needs*. this is what made him a villain. this is the tool that broke him! sure, it's objectively good that they're saving everyone else... but seeing loki, as an individual, brought back to this point again and again makes me feel nothing but dread and horror and nausea. it's tragic, and not in a gentle, poetic way, but in a way that makes you want to try and claw your way out of the story like a caged animal. loki is selfish, yes, and he became a villain to try and save himself. who's going to save him now?

idk. i'm not trying to say that i'm more enlightened or compassionate or whatever for rooting for the character i root for here. he IS a mass-murdering imperialist who once attempted genocide. i'm not saying that the other perspective is *wrong* at all - in fact, it's interesting to me, because that would never have occurred to me from within my villain apologist echo chamber. and i also find it impressive that avengers 2012 was constructed to have multiple emotion throughlines and sets of stakes, so fans of different characters would get completely opposite things out of the same scene and they would *still both work*. i wish marvel had kept that level of commitment up for like... any of their future crossovers.

but... even so. it is just a little alien to me, and the fact that it is is kind of funny. what do you MEAN that's how 95% of people who've seen these films think of loki. what do you MEAN there were people who ENJOYED seeing the heroes win!!!!!

#space viking tag #not sure how to tag. reflecting on fan perspectives. idk

[thetwominuteshate-blog]

Hello, cruel world.

I am exhausted with living on this earth.

I could throw literary quotes at you. I could tell you that society at large has become what the dystopian science fiction authors of yesteryear predicted it would. I could start this blog with a call to arms, urging you to riot in the streets and tear down the prison we've built for ourselves.

But the truth is I'm just tired. I'm tired of constantly living in fear. I'm tired of feeling no connection with the world around me. I'm tired of seeing so much suffering that spans continents, in "the greatest nation in the world", while criminals look down on us with derision from their ivory towers. I am tired of feeling as though, no matter what I do, my decisions are of no consequence. I'm tired of the world slowly eroding me until there is nothing good left in me. I'm tired of feeling alone, and I am so, so tired of seeing the world as it could be--as it SHOULD be--and always coming up so short I can't even see the finish line.

I've been rejecting the reality I've found myself in for far too long, escaping into worlds of my own making or the worlds others have created for the sake of escaping my own despair. But it doesn't have to be this way. I still reject this reality, the efficient brutality of a race that has been born into an environment so unforgiving that we fail to put our own violent natures behind us. I reject the notion that the world cannot improve. I have had enough.

Those of you who have read George Orwell's 1984 might remember the Two Minutes Hate. For those of you who haven't or have forgotten, the Two Minutes' Hate is a daily ritual put in place by a maddeningly restrictive government with the intention of directing the fear and anger of common individuals living in such a repressive society by placing them in front of a television screen that projects images of whomever the Party deems is an enemy. The Other. When I first read it, this excerpt in particular stood out to me:

"The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp."

These days, most of what I see in the media is the Two Minutes Hate. Talking heads on two dimensional screens telling us who we should hate. Vicious propaganda that those who lack the will to fight the ones keeping them locked in misery buy into wholeheartedly. Instead of directing their rage at the ones responsible, people punch down, ostracizing people less fortunate than them.

But this isn't the reason why I chose to name this blog after the Two Minutes Hate. Because hate is a funny thing--when we don't let it eat away at us, it gives us the strength to fight without abandon. It causes us to reduce things to rubble and burn the remains so there is no trace of its existence. It can be a powerful tool. But it is fire, and most of us, if not all, aren't well enough equipped with the knowledge to know which things are worth burning.

I've been filled with hate nearly for as long as I can remember. Full disclosure: I'm a 27-year-old white, bisexual cis male. For most of my life I lived in a small town and have largely kept myself in seclusion due to bullying throughout my childhood into my teen years. I only recently became aware of the deepening aspects of my sexuality, but over the years I've faced baseless accusations of homosexuality to the point that a cowardly bully had his friend fight me. As a result, I faced suspension. My school district, like most, put on a public face that disavowed bullying, but enabled it when it occurred. The culture I was surrounded by swam in toxic masculinity, boys that pretended to be men through the ownership of trucks flying the Confederate flag and other meaningless, superficial displays of their own insecurities. My "community", which is so very important to conservative culture, treated me like a stubborn weed long before I could even grasp cruelty. I felt suffocated, unable to flourish because there was always someone watching my every move. As a result, I've come to loathe authority in all its forms.

That's just backstory, though. Over the years I've come to realize that my circumstances were relatively fortunate. I'm privileged; people have been murdered over the merest suspicion that they might be gay. There are people who face severe bullying on a near-daily basis, and that's in this country alone. The atrocities committed in our world's history dwarf mine to a subatomic level. I've had friends who have been raped, faced child and domestic abuse, and even now are in circumstances far more dire than my own. It's no longer for my own sake that I hate, it's for those who are beaten down and cannot fight back, whether on an individual or cultural basis.

I'm not here to play white, straight(ish) savior. In fact, I wouldn't even consider myself to be an ordinary person. I am on the verge of mental instability--for years I've felt the effects of severe depression, which is finally in check. For a time I was so suicidal that I abused substances on a daily basis because the only calming thoughts I had in sobriety were of my own death. I have a deep desire to hurt and destroy, to get back at the world that I feel cut me open and left me to bleed out. I'm a sadist and a masochist in the BDSM scene. I have twisted fantasies that run so deeply to my core and no outlet for them outside of the scene. I want to make others suffer for the injustices they inflict upon those who are undeserving of pain. Because whoever came up with the idiom, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" should have been tortured without cause, broken by suffering that held no ultimate meaning. Then he'd have a greater grasp on the state of the reality as it is.

Hate is addictive. Orwell was right; it spreads like a wildfire, and it's impossible not to be caught in the blaze yourself unless you sequester yourself with comfort and ignorance. And turning a blind eye to the problems others face, whether it's next door or on the other side of the globe, is possibly worse. Until now, I've feared the repercussions of acting against authority, the odds of my successful retribution stacked heavily against me. Even now, I fear the things I will express will draw fire from all sides, so I'm shielding myself through an anonymity browser in order to ward off potential enemies, whether they are a collective agency like the NSA or some alt-right IT cunt with internet access. Those of us in the United States have been officially granted a right to free speech, but we live in an era in which seizing that right can go so far as to get you killed, especially if you call for progress and your voice is heard by millions.

But my end goal is not society's complete collapse. There are pieces of this world worth preserving. I may only be useful for tearing things down, but someday I hope someone will build them back up into something better that works for all people. I long to help individuals understand that all people are just that--people. Not secondary or tertiary characters in your life, good-or-evil projections onto a screen for you to scream at. It's this mentality that causes entire populations to suffer, and I know my work will never be done until the most marginalized find a place in society.

But this is not a call to empathy. Part of recognizing each other's humanity is holding each other accountable for their actions. I believe no person can be perfectly good--we all do terrible things, myself thoroughly included--but there are those of us who are so mindlessly destructive in their actions that I honestly believe the world would be better off without them. This quality of malignance does not discriminate between race, gender, or age. We are among self-made monsters on a daily basis, and they deserve as much sympathy as they dole out.

Words without action are meaningless. I don't intend to sit here and tell y'all to start a French-style bloodletting while I sit comfortably in a downtown loft. This is a time for action. This is a time for violence. This is a time to stand up against the birth of fascism in the so-called "Land of the Free". This is a time for hate.

I am Winston Smith, and this is my Two Minutes Hate. This is my war. Will you join me?

#fuck donald trump #fuck trump #make donald drumf again #fuck maga #fuck fascism #fuck society #fuck you for happening #antifa #anarchist #george orwell #1984 #1984 is now #two minutes hate

[politics-and-philosophy]

Ok, so I know that I'm supposed to be weirded out by the fact that this person clearly created a random brand-new tumblr just to message me anonymously, but honestly, I'm honored.

Look, this tumblr is straight-up blank, aside from the header photo. Is that a homemade handgun btw? It looks like it. Honestly though, I just feel kinda honored. Because this person is either scared enough of me to want anonymity (I can't see why) or scared enough of the reprisal they would face on their main blog (this one makes more sense).

So, again, let's go point-by-point.

I don't think the government should have control over who owns a gun in the same way I don't think the government should have control over who lives and dies. I think that gun ownership should be restricted constitutionally, by removing and replacing the second amendment. In this new amendment, I want only three types of individuals to be allowed to own guns:

1. Those in remote areas who require guns for survival.

2. Collectors of historic guns who can only load and fire them on shooting ranges.

3. Active duty military personnel deployed in foreign soil, and domestic soil only during a foreign invasion.

This list notably excludes cops, active duty military on domestic soil, security details, sport hunters, and everyone else. I have said all this before though.

This would not give a monopoly on power to the government, in fact, it would significantly stymie the power the government already has over people by removing the threat of firearms.

Personally, I think this would stop almost all gun violence, not just mass shootings. The majority of gun killings are committed with guns which were once legally owned (the US is a net exporter of illegal firearms, mostly to Mexico, due to our lax gun laws). Furthermore, while 4 in 5 gun homicides are committed with a gun not owned by the perpetrator, that's not the end of the story. 30% of those guns are stolen, but of those 30%, over 4 in 10 are not reported stolen until after a crime is committed, and 44% of gun owners whose guns were stolen did not respond to attempts to be contacted by police. Of the other 70%, reported lost, in 62% of instances, the legal owner of the gun was unaware of where or when the gun was lost. That is a staggering number of people who are reckless with firearm safety.

A large part of this is due to shoestring purchases, where someone who passes a legal background check will go and buy a gun for someone who wouldn't, or to then go and sell it at an upcharge on the black market, only to claim it lost or stolen when it shows up at a crime scene. The legal gun market directly supports and enables both gun crime and the illegal gun market. Making it more difficult to legally get a gun will make it exponentially more difficult to illegally acquire a gun. More on this later.

Mass shootings are a small percentage of total deaths, but these deaths are unique in how horrible, violent, and early in a person's life they come. They are always the direct result of hate, and are a uniquely American problem within the developed world. Unlike robbery murders or even homicides motivated by passion, mass shootings don't target a specific individual. They seek to kill a group of people indiscriminately. Essentially, they're a violent hate crime, almost always motivated by a right-wing view of society and a belief that violence solves problems.

It's also laughable that the ownership of a gun somehow puts you on even footing with the government. Do you know how much firepower the government has? Even military grade weapons are useless against an actual military.

Ok, here's Oxford's definition of a civil right:

Please go read this. Civil rights are rights of society and politics. They are things such as voting rights, marriage rights, freedom from religious infringement in your life, right to exist in society and politics. Gun ownership is no more a civil right than is the right to smoke crack.

America has a gun violence epidemic, compared to the rest of the world, and even compared among the states.

Here's a fun graph comparing gun violence and gun ownership among first world countries.

Here's a graph comparing gun violence and gun regulation within the United States:

Ok, finally, on to fascism. So, let's start from the top and work our way to different outcomes. We have our first decision at "Is the current gun violence rate and mass shooting epidemic within the US worth fixing?" Personally, I think yes. If you think no, I invite you to tell that to anyone who lost a family member in a mass shooting and see if you don't get punched.

Having resolved yes, we move onto what to do. There are three real solutions.

1. Increase of law enforcement

2. Increase of surveillance

3. Regulation of firearms

Notably, mental health reforms is left off this list. I've addressed that several times in other posts. In summary, mass shooters don't seek mental services and the majority of perpetrators aren't mentally ill, they're disillusioned with society.

Now, as a liberal and specifically a social liberal, I hate fascism and think that among the political ideologies out there fascism and authoritarianism are a special kind of evil. In general, I see it as better to have a large government which serves the people instead of a small government which oppresses the people. A lot of conservatives, especially anarco-capitalists, think that a small government is necessarily less oppressive, but that is not true. Governments can be large, but if they are beholden to a citizenship, they'll obey said citizens. Small governments who are isolated from the populace easily turn towards oppression.

But I digress. Let's start with the first choice, and see where it takes us. For this exercise, we'll be assuming that when the government is given control over a certain aspect of our lives, they'll want to increase that control. So, we increase the law enforcement in all major metropolitan areas, meaning armed guards at malls, churches, movie theaters, schools, etc. And even though mass shootings still occur when armed guards are present (Parkland) or when police arrive on scene within the minute (El Paso), it's okay because we get to keep our guns, everybody has a gun so everyone is safe. This is basically a police state. The scary thing is conservatives have actually proposed this. Sean Hannity said on live TV that we need to place armed guards at every public area. And if you don't trust the government, how the hell could you trust the armed guards they have stationed outside the grocery store.

Next solution is increased surveillance. If access to guns is to remain unrestricted, then we need to be able to find the killers before they kill. What do all of the mass shooters have in common? An internet history rife with extremism and alt-right views. So, screen everyone. And go ahead and start censoring people who have those views too, just to be safe. But once we have a suspected shooter, how can we know when they're about to commit murder? You can't arrest someone for fitting a profile. So, you start tracking them, looking through their purchases, making sure they aren't trying to get someone to buy them a firearm, following them, watching them. Even if all they did is post on the internet with no intent, now the government knows their every move. And suddenly, the small minor infractions that everyone commits daily start to add up. So, one agent decides to hell with it, let's just bust him early for something, anything we can make stick. This isn't a hypothetical, either. There are countless stories of cops falsifying evidence just to make the arrest because they believe an innocent person is guilty.

Finally, firearm regulation. Now here you might think that if you lose your firearm, you lose your safety. Ignoring for a moment that I specifically advocated for law enforcement to not have firearms, if you genuinely think you are safer with a gun than without it, you are wrong. The mindset that, without your gun, there's nothing to stop the government from trampling your rights ignores the fact that even with your gun, there's nothing really stopping the government from trampling your rights, because the government has a lot more guns than you and they're a lot bigger. Now, perhaps you think that having an armed populace means a resistance or insurgency is possible. Ignoring that the government could squash any insurgency within the US, who even says the insurgents are on your side politically? What's stopping them from rising up right now? The same thing that's stopping the government from killing any dissidents: the fact that we live in a society and without it the government would collapse. Often times people speak as though the government is some separate entity when in reality in America every single person who us eligible to vote or pays taxes is a member of the government. We are the power base of the government, and to distinguish between the citizens of the US and the government if the US is a real gray area, because the government can't exist without the economic base that is our society. You called us sheep but we aren't sheep, we're the golden goose and you never ever kill the golden goose. The government won't come to put us all in camps because they'd wake up broke the next day. And even if they did, your gun wouldn't stop them, it just means they'd kill you.

When you arm everyone, you arm EVERYONE. Not just the lawful responsible owner, but the mass shooter, the murderer, the rapist, the insurgents on both the right and the left, the domestic terrorists, the gang bangers, the government sympathizers, the government itself, everyone. And while obviously it's not every gun owner, it could be any gun owner. And any realistic way to distinguish the difference between a responsible individual looking to own a gun and a mass shooter arming up is with a level of invasiveness that should make you incredibly uncomfortable. This is what I mean when I talk about surveillance.

Let's come to a conclusion here, because this post has gotten quite long.

The idea that you could amass enough firepower to resist the government is not reasonable. What protects you from the government is not weaponry but anonymity. Currently, our system has both, but having both allows criminals and murderers to readily access firearms and kill people. So, since the weaponry isn't protecting us anyway, might as well get rid of it and save some lives.

EDIT: The blog that sent these messages no longer exists, and I don't have access to them anymore, so I'm glad I screenshoted when I did. Kinda confirms my suspicion that they just wanted to anonymously harass me. Oh well, nothing as predictable as a coward.