Kent State gun girl open carries on campus. The intolerant socialist left rears its ugly head.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Kent State gun girl Kaitlin Bennett faces protests at Ohio University

It doesn't do much good when somebody doesn't kill anybody doesn't it? It kind of deflates the issue.

So instead of the person with the weapon.....

.....the people without the weapons do the attacks.

Oh by the way, nobody died either to the extreme disappointment of the left, whom felt obligated to do all the damage themselves this time around.

The incident speaks volumes.

The incident speaks volumes about redneck culture in America. Maybe another armed, trembling redneck with a gun will have a shootout with her, perhaps in a Stuckey's or Winn Dixie near you. Yee-haw!

Maybe they'll kill one another. Would anybody but you consider that a loss?

 

[epronovost]

Sweden is still a capitalist economy, so to label it as "socialist"
is misleading. USA is generally considered to be capitalist, yet
Sweden is arguably more so.
Ref...
Index of Economic Freedom - Wikipedia
Fans of socialism are typically loath to admit their most
faithful examples, eg, N Korea, the old USSR, PRC, Cuba.

Yet, labeling it as a purely capitalist country is equally misleading as it completely brush aside the important role of the government in regulation of the economy and in it's activity. The Swedish State owns partially or completely 46 companies mostly in the healthcare, education, engineering, research and transport domain and that's not conting all the sectors of economical activity the Swedish State tightly regulate from advertisement laws, to cultural product passing by edcation, healthcare, trade and banking. The system of Sweden is definitely a mixed economy built alongst the line of liberal socialism with a social democrat government at its head. This makes it, by all definition, a socialist country. Albeit its socialism is a soft form of it.

PS: North Korea is more akin to an absolute monarchy than a socialist country. It's culture is wrapped in socialist rethoric as it was popular at the time, but it has more in common with the Joseon monarchy than anything else.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet, labeling it as a purely capitalist country is equally misleading as it completely brush aside the important role of the government in regulation of the economy and in it's activity. The Swedish State owns partially or completely 46 companies mostly in the healthcare, education, engineering, research and transport domain and that's not conting all the sectors of economical activity the Swedish State tightly regulate from advertisement laws, to cultural product passing by edcation, healthcare, trade and banking. The system of Sweden is definitely a mixed economy built alongst the line of liberal socialism with a social democrat government at its head. This makes it, by all definition, a socialist country. Albeit its socialism is a soft form of it.

PS: North Korea is more akin to an absolute monarchy than a socialist country. It's culture is wrapped in socialist rethoric as it was popular at the time, but it has more in common with the Joseon monarchy than anything else.

In the spectrum from socialism to capitalism, it makes
sense to use either label only regarding countries tending
strongly towards one or the other. Thus, USA, Sweden,
Canuckistan, etc are capitalist.
Remember, "socialism" is about the means of production",
not social welfare programs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've never actually known anyone to carry a gun as a fashion accessory. I doubt that it happens at all. The accusation strikes me as a dismissive insult. What's your experience?

Why else would someone carry a rifle in a university campus beside to look cool or something like that?

Um, that wasn't me. It was his Revoltalizer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why else would someone carry a rifle in a university campus beside to look cool or something like that?

That was a political (rather than fashion) statement.

 

[epronovost]

Remember, "socialism" is about the means of production",
not social welfare programs.

Actually, socialism is about both general welfare and distribution of wealth and workers ownership of the means of production. The welfare of society and just distribution of wealth is the reason for worker's ownership of the means of production in the first place. Note that the 46 company owned by the Swedish government are very much about "means of production". The idea that something should be considered as welfare instead of a product that can purchased by those willing and capable of it is also significant and a sign of socialist economy. The greater the number of services considered welfare and taken in charge by the State, the least capitalist driven is an economy since it reduces the quantity and variety of areas where "free entreprise" can operate.

 

[Polymath257]

Ohio is an open carry state.

I've seen people walking down the roads carrying rifles and the like. A lot of Mennonites/Amish do that in rural areas. Most of the time they wave as I pass by and I waved back.

It's really amazing on how people are continually being brainwashed into thinking anybody out there that carries a gun is itching for some nefarious purpose.

Obviously people are easily duped and fooled into thinking it's always somehow wrong to openly carry your firearm because said person is 'obviously up to no good'.

The Kent State girl proves that people are wrong on that front, and the socialist left simply cannot stand nor stomach it.

My problem is that carrying a gun gives a private citizen the right of life or death. And that is simply too much power to put in the hands of individuals without training or supervision.

I don't assume every person with a gun has nefarious purposes. But I know that enough do to make it a situation of heightened danger, especially since I have no way to be sure that the person carrying the gun had to go through any sort of background check or mental health check. I cannot simply assume they are sane or not a criminal. In fact, unless they have a good reason to be carrying the gun, I assume they are trying to be aggressive (showing weapons tends to be regarded as aggression). And that increases my fear that they are not fully sane.

So, how can we be reasonably certain that *every* open carry person is sane enough to be trusted? What checks and balances are you willing to put into effect to make this even highly likely?

 

[epronovost]

That was a political (rather than fashion) statement.

If it was an exceptionnal use of it for that person that could indeed be the reason. Though if she open carries guns in public often, then it's not really a political statement and becomes more some sort of fashion not unlike a Che t-shirt.

 

[Father Heathen]

@Nowhere Man

"The term socialism refers to any system in which the production and distribution of goods and services is a shared responsibility of a group of people. Socialism is based upon economic and political theories that advocate for collectivism. In a state of socialism, there is no privately owned property." - Examples of Socialism

So which Democratic candidates have openly advocated for government seizure of factories and private property?

 

[SomeRandom]

Kent State gun girl Kaitlin Bennett faces protests at Ohio University

It doesn't do much good when somebody doesn't kill anybody doesn't it? It kind of deflates the issue.

So instead of the person with the weapon.....

.....the people without the weapons do the attacks.

Oh by the way, nobody died either to the extreme disappointment of the left, whom felt obligated to do all the damage themselves this time around.

The incident speaks volumes.

Oh that’s that insufferable asshat who accosts people just trying to get to class about their opinions on trans people using bathrooms. Ironically some of the responses people gave, made me think they thought she was Trans herself and didn’t want to insult her by accident.
I’ve been seeing everyone dunk on her lately.

Ngl, if someone that obnoxious/toxic came to my uni, I’d protest too. Not out of any sense of political affiliation (I’m not American) or even just because she likes to carry guns, I don’t care. But just sheer principle alone would be enough for me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@Nowhere Man

"The term socialism refers to any system in which the production and distribution of goods and services is a shared responsibility of a group of people. Socialism is based upon economic and political theories that advocate for collectivism. In a state of socialism, there is no privately owned property." - Examples of Socialism

So which Democratic candidates have openly advocated for government seizure of factories and private property?

Don't think for a minute that doesn't already go on.

When Governments Take Over Industries in Trouble

As far as candidates go?

Google Bernie Sanders your lead man of the socialist Democratic party.

He's been vying for nationalization since the 70s and he's winning all the nominations confirming the facts that the Democrats have since become a socialist party.

Not to mention ad nauseam, repeating the fact that people who came from actual socialist countries, have been trying time and time again to warn the Democrats since of their sharp left ward turn towards socialism/communism. Do I have to keep posting the same links time and time again?


‘Damn socialism, why are you chasing me?’ Chinese-Americans see ghost of communism in Democrats’ leftward turn

Chinese-Americans Repelled by Dems' Socialist Turn | RealClearPolitics


Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries - CNNPolitics

I rest my case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, socialism is about both general welfare and distribution of wealth and workers ownership of the means of production.

Formal definitions don't include general welfare.
This is something which socialists typically add to "socialism".

The welfare of society and just distribution of wealth is the reason for worker's ownership of the means of production in the first place.

This is theory behind it, but not integral to the definition.
Oddly, full blown socialism generally works against
society's welfare.

Note that the 46 company owned by the Swedish government are very much about "means of production". The idea that something should be considered as welfare instead of a product that can purchased by those willing and capable of it is also significant and a sign of socialist economy. The greater the number of services considered welfare and taken in charge by the State, the least capitalist driven is an economy since it reduces the quantity and variety of areas where "free entreprise" can operate.

Sweden is still more capitalistic than even the USA
as measured by the Heritage Foundation. So I'd put
both in the capitalist end of the spectrum, but certainly
not pure, ie, mixed as nearly all economies are.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it was an exceptionnal use of it for that person that could indeed be the reason. Though if she open carries guns in public often, then it's not really a political statement and becomes more some sort of fashion not unlike a Che t-shirt.

That seems a strained inference for her intention.
Guns are not like blouses, handbags, scarves, & thongs.

 

[epronovost]

That seems a strained inference for her intention.
Guns are not like blouses, handbags, scarves, & thongs.

They can be a fashion statement just like a thong is. Similarly, in certain places of the world a thong can become a powerful political statement.

 

[Revoltingest]

They can be a fashion statement just like a thong is. Similarly, in certain places of the world a thong can become a powerful political statement.

Color me skeptical of the claim.

 

[epronovost]

Formal definitions don't include general welfare.
This is something which socialists typically add to "socialism".

The idea that welfare is included is in the preface of the communist manifesto of Marx and was discussed extansively by pretty much all socialists thinkers. It's central to socialism.

This is theory behind it, but not integral to the definition.
Oddly, full blown socialism generally works against
society's welfare.

Hard to tell, socialist countries are varied. In general though, socialist countries have seen a sharp rise in their literacy and life expectancy compared to what they were prior to that change

Sweden is still more capitalistic than even the USA
as measured by the Heritage Foundation. So I'd put
both in the capitalist end of the spectrum, but certainly
not pure, ie, mixed as nearly all economies are.

And this is why the Heritage Foundation is widely considered a nest of idiots. You can add their profound misunderstanding of what socialism is and what shape it can take to their defense of Intelligent Design, their climate change denialism and the fact that they pull "studies" out of thin air to advance a pseudo-libertarian ideology. The fact that it was founded by a conspiracy theorist with no training in economics doesn't help its case. In other words. if the Heritage Foundation says it, it's probably wrong to some degree. That's of course assuming they are simply genuinly ignorant and not peddling propaganda to make it look like socialist policies don't work which is basically their goal. The Heritage Foundation is a political think tank not an academic institute. Passing the successes of others as your own is an old propaganda trick.

 

[epronovost]

Color me skeptical of the claim.

It wasn't called "the sexual revolution" for nothing you know. In some place of the world a woman wearing sexy underwear/clothing is a woman attacking a cultural and the very structure of power.

 

[Revoltingest]

The idea that welfare is included is in the preface of the communist manifesto of Marx and was discussed extansively by pretty much all socialists thinkers.

But it's not part of the definition, & social welfare
is generally awful in socialist countries.

Hard to tell, socialist countries are varied. In general though, socialist countries have seen a sharp rise in their literacy and life expectancy compared to what they were prior to that change

This, when it happens, isn't part of the definition.

And this is why the Heritage Foundation is widely considered a nest of idiots. You can add their profound misunderstanding of what socialism is and what shape it can take to their defense of Intelligent Design, their climate change denialism and the fact that they pull "studies" out of thin air to advance a pseudo-libertarian ideology. The fact that it was founded by a conspiracy theorist with no training in economics doesn't help its case. In other words. if the Heritage Foundation says it, it's probably wrong to some degree.

You're welcome to find some other organization measuring economic liberty.
And you're welcome to challenge their criteria & conclusions.
But simply impugning the source is no argument at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't called "the sexual revolution" for nothing you know. In some place of the world a woman wearing sexy underwear/clothing is a woman attacking a cultural and the very structure of power.

That has nothing to do with the claim of guns worn as a fashion statement.

 

[epronovost]

But it's not part of the definition

Yes, it is. Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprise, including the political theories and movements associated with such systems. And that's just the first lines of a chapters long books on the subject.

& social welfare
is generally awful in socialist countries.

If you take the US and the USSR as example, literacy and education was higher in the USSR, though the life expectancy of the US was generally a bit higher (by about 8 months though so still comparable). Cuba generally has better healthcare than the US, though they are exceptionaly good in that domain.

Cuba vs United States: Health Facts and Stats

You're welcome to find some other organization measuring economic liberty.
And you're welcome to challenge their criteria & conclusions.
But simply impugning the source is no argument at all.

Well if you want to listen to the economical insight of people who aren't trained economists and are known cranks and propagandists you can do it. I pesonnaly, don't take their analysis as facts.

The methodology to calculate this economical freedom index has numerous problems from ill-defined criteria, unapplicable criteria to certain economy, to bureaucratic efficeny which can vary tremendously even within a single country. In other words, a well managed democratic country will score very high no matter it's economical system simply on the virtue of being financially stable, having little inflation, a manageable debt, an efficient bureaucracy backed by independant courts and ease of access to information. Trust in politician and the government even factors in. Sweden scores very highly because it's a very well managed democratic country and it's a liberal-socialist economy where 67% of employees are member of a union, where dozens of businesses are government owned, where various key sectors are tightly managed, with a relatively high level of taxation (though in a much simpler and cleaner system than the byzantine system of the US). This index tells pretty much nothing and everything at the same time and it's certainly not an index that says what is capitalism and what is socialism or evaluate them on a single spectrum. Socialism doesn't mean "less fee" either. It's just a different kind of structure.