Kenshi

Lucky for you the linked article explains the acronym!

Wait, you’re not one of those people who only reads headlines, are you?

You’re not being a jerk, you’re being pedantic.

Ignorant is absolutely the better word, and I should have used it.

I think, however, that people are far more capable of gaining intelligence than we give them credit for. I don’t believe that IQ is assigned at birth, and it’s been shown that the entire idea of IQ testing is extremely flawed.

There are people born with learning disabilities, of course, but that’s a whole other conversation.

As much as I love these quotes, I think it’s important to qualify them:

Everyone is born stupid, but people can be educated. If we want an educated populace, we must put in the work to create functional systems of education, and celebrate intelligence as a society. It’ll be hard work, and there are plenty of people out there who would prefer to see the masses remain stupid.

“The way Americans regard sports heroes versus intellectuals speaks volumes” An article by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct!

I should have been more precise.

I didn’t intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn’t say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.

It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word “Militia” was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick’s advancement of this legislation.

To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment’s “militia” verbiage from scrutiny.

I don’t know any lawyers personally, so I can’t ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you’re parroting them? I’d love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.

I did find the Wikipedia article on the word “militia” and it suggests that the accepted “official” definition may have been changed by the “Militia Act of 1903”.

I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.

So, a militia, in your interpretation is:

“A group of able bodied males who posses firearms and who are organized, in good working order, by their local government.”

Or do I have it wrong? I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand.

“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.

Assuming that to be true, what does “militia” mean when translated from 1700’s speak?

Absolutely! Thankfully. Just tipping their hand with regards to the ridiculous bullshit they’ll try use to prevent a Trump vs Obama situation.

Unfortunately, the legislative policy that’s being floated in the House is that a president can seek a third term only if their first two terms were non-consecutive. (Source)

It becomes wrong immediately, but wrong is not a binary state.

“Once a cop is responsible for 1 murder he may as well continue to kill because 1 murder is the same as 30,000 murders.”

The whole thing is worth watching, but here’s some timestamped links to a couple of parts of the presser where he discusses this:

https://youtu.be/ZRtXTXJgm3E?si=b10M6VWvd7yKqwpo&t=1130

https://youtu.be/ZRtXTXJgm3E?si=AH8xuLicjkruTOs5&t=1364

Why?

1 person being held with no due process is as bad as 30000.

Please explain this one to me, because I’m not understanding your math.

"To understand revolutionary suicide it is first necessary to have an idea of reactionary suicide, for the two are very different. Reactionary suicide: the reaction of a man who takes his own life in response to social conditions that overwhelm him and condemn him to helplessness.”

“I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions.”

“But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.”

– Dr. Huey P. Newton

I wish we’d gotten to see the rest of Lovecraft’s redemption arc.

He died so soon after beginning to realize and acknowledge that his views about the world had been abhorrent.

Edit to add:

If anyone’s curious to read an example of the beginnings of his realization, check out this letter, written about a month before his death:

https://github.com/punchmonster/Lovecraft-Letters/blob/master/19370207-Catherine-L-Moore.md

It’s a fairly long letter, but the whole thing is interesting. He seems to have been radicalized and was becoming quite critical of capitalism, if not a full blown Marxist. You’ll find the following quote in the last paragraph:

I looked around for a 1924 photograph of myself to burn, spit on, or stick pins in! Holy Hades—was I that much of a dub at 33 … only 13 years ago? There was no getting out of it—I really had thrown all that haughty, complacent, snobbish, self-centered, intolerant bull, & at a mature age when anybody but a perfect damned fool would have known better!

There’s more evidence in there than just that passage, but this is already becoming a wall of text!

Thank you. I will look over these as time permits!

That’s, not really what I asked. You have an opportunity here to argue publicly for a position you believe in passionately, and are criticizing others for not holding… and you pass it off to me?

Why bother to preach if you’re not willing to teach? Or at least provide a link or two.