The top half of this is me addressing you off-topic.
The bottom half is...still off-topic, but it's on topic of the off-topic, to those who want to save your eyes.
(I hope whoever starts reading this clears their weekend beforehand)
Take ownership of your opinion.
When I'm posting a legitimate opinion, I tend to not put 4 paragraphs of BS jokes in there. And if anything when I'm in the middle of writing a bit, or trying to fight my way out of it I'll use parenthesis or brackets to attempt to separate the flow to stick in "my own" comment that is typically more 'straight man', or even honest. (Even though it's technically all "my comment". <---Kinda like that) ; commenting on my own comments. I watched a lot of MST3000 as a kid.
Jokes do not always have to contain truth, personal bias or opinion. Just as drunk words are truly not sober thoughts. I can put some
personal opinion into a joke, then fuck around with it - sure, but it warps the opinion to where it's not really my true opinion. Those posts were comedy. I have said it. I say that in all of my posts that I'm clearly and visibly turning into a bit, or one in which I know needs heavy clarification.
If I wanted (or was looking for) a response, I wouldn't have put "Don't waste your time. I'm joking." I wasn't trying to reel you in. I really didn't want you to waste your time trying to pick apart my post because I didn't intend it to be picked-apart. I simply intended it to be read. I even immediately feared what I was doing which is why I started it with "not to open a can of worms."
I try so so so hard to get across the point that I'm joking, or killing time.
Sometimes by saying "I'm joking", sometimes by saying "It's just a joke, friend/comrade/amigo/hombre", sometimes I say "Please don't respond to my nonsense
, I'm only killing time".
Do you think I'm masking my 100% legitimate opinions in massive layers of jokes simply so when nobody replies (after I have pleaded with them to not even try, or tried to diffuse the situation before it even begins) I can shout from the roofs "I fucking won a fake argument on the internet because nobody responded to me after I had asked them not to!"?
(Not a half-bad idea)
By all means you're allowed to reply to whatever the fuck you want to. Just as I'm allowed to get bored within my own responses and try turn it into comedy, completely warping what I was initially going to say until I am no longer bored, but pleased with the entertainment value I have given myself in reading my own "script".
Not because I love my 'opinion', but because it's an act
. I'm not going for a "That guy really made me think" type of thing, or a "hmm. I need to tell him how his view is flawed". I'm going for a "Reading/hearing that entertained me in some form, if even only for a second."
I'm trying to save your fingers, man. I've got a herniated disc in my back. I'm still in recovery, so I can't do much else than type on a message board. You've got a life outside of here. I'm simply trying to save you the time and frustration at something not-worthy of even addressing and attempting to draw a serious conversation from. You didn't need to double the amount of time you wasted - In essence you've quadrupled or quintupled it, if you factor this post, then replying to this post.
It's the difference between dissecting a bad stand up comedian at mic night, and a bad politician in a makeshift debate.
I started it with a base of personal opinion, yes. But I dick around with it so much that it goes beyond my opinion of "I don't think you need a militia" and turned into "I don't think gays will steal your tanks or planes, so I'm pretty sure you can put the guns away, because all the poor fags will be down here, and all the rich white straight folk will be on the moonbase with Overlord Gingrich"
Where would you be more likely to hear that comment [probably nowhere, because it was a bad bit]? Open mic night, or a debate? (I hope you thought 'open mic night', for the sake of your debates.)
You don't value gun rights, therefore EVERYONE should not be able to exercise them.
The beauty of subjectivity, eh.
And to say I don't value gun rights is crazy. I totally value gun rights. I don't necessarily agree with your country's gun laws, or the love for them.
There is a certain point where a man only needs a gun because every other man has a gun (Mutually assured destruction). Take away all the guns, and you can have a way calmer conversation.
Keep in mind I live in another country where guns are illegal (and where I don't even vote "Democrat", to be honest), or at least highly restricted if for hunting purposes.
People have guns here, but it doesn't bother me.
had a gun, or was able to. I might think about it because then it goes from "I need to be safe" to "I don't want to be the only motherfucker without a gun, incase someone else who has a gun goes nuts."
But my country doesn't have 300 million people, and nearly constant civil disobedience from one group feeling completely shut down and hated by another. (Your entire countries history was essentially founded on civil disobedience at almost every stage! That's actually fascinating.)
That's the ENTIRE POINT of the legislative and amendment process. If you can't gather a large majority of public opinion, you can't remove the rights of the individual, and this is especially true of those rights protected in the bill of rights.
The fact that you guys can agree on anything is fucking astounding to me. You had a war because certain people wanted to own black humans as property.
After that you just had a big country-wide hug and brushed it under the rug, and shouted 'Murica!
together. Water under the bridge. One nation. Two widely
varying views on nearly everything
since then (unless in retrospect).
Sometimes I think it would have been best for the civil war to actually divide you into two countries. Imagine how much easier it would be to run a country when the other half of the country doesn't always disagree with you on nearly everything all of the time.
In Canada our politicians and groups of people totally disagree. Of course; or else there would be no point to the process in the first place. (I didn't want to make it seem like I was oblivious to my own countries massive problems)
Countries that have half of a population disagreeing with the other half more often than not are usually failures of countries until they split up and can then become efficient, unless they get stuck with no resources and all the poor/dumb people and the other side gets all of the gold and scientists. Infighting over the differences between the cultures of a massive civilization doesn't help any country out, unless you can force those people do do cheap labour like in China or India.
Now I'm not saying it doesn't show something for social progress that it's a talking point in the US. Hell, it's not like it happened to long ago here, either.
But half of your country will not instantly accept it just because a law may pass
For a nation that always tries to pride itself on Freedom - you've got some serious small-european-country-style-issues that divide you, and will probably not stop dividing you as a whole, ever. Passing a law won't remove the invisible line of division. Slavery was abolished, the slaves were deemed free people, treated as equals. Tell that to the hardcore white fanatics in the deep south.
So slavery and women's suffrage movements are the same as arguing over semantics/the use of a word? Of course they aren't.
Of course not. But I'm not the one who actually compared denying gay marriage to attempting to deny gun law.
But black people's freedom and a woman's right to vote are easily more important in my mind than the right to have a gun. Subjective? Of course. Everything is. Show me one thing that isn't subjective, I'll show you a guy that says you're wrong.
The reason I did
choose to compare to slavery and suffrage was because they have to do with rights that affect the way people live, opposed to the things you can own. Unless you shoot someone every day that gun law doesn't change your Mon-Fri.
But being forced to pick cotton, being told your opinion doesn't matter, and being unable to call your spouse your husband/wife seemingly have to be
more important things than "We're allowed to have guns." I'm not saying the gun thing is unimportant - but it's not like they're equal issues. At least I don't believe they should be.
Again, we both agree on the heart of this issue, but forcing it could potentially cause violence and even murder in our more backward areas. Not only that, it could give enough political will to attempt an amendment defining marriage, and I think that would set the entire cause back for decades, potentially.
I definitely agree that forcing it isn't the way to do it. But if put to a vote I don't think it would ever
And if it did there would be some uprising because "The Bible defines it as between a man and a woman (and her dowry of goats)."
But Christian God doesn't overlook Buddhist ceremonies. They weren't married under the eyes of "God" (as defined by Christianity) - yet they're still allowed to say they're married because they are a "man and woman". It's just picking and choosing words to tack a loophole onto.
[After writing that paragraph out I'm actually surprised at least one
hate-filled God-lovers hasn't loopholed Muslims out of marriage in your country because they weren't married under 'God'.]
I've been noticing more and more lately that a lot of Republicans (figureheads, not plebs) are referring to the US as a "Christian Nation". The old rhetoric by them used to be "We're not a Christian nation. We just have a lot of faith in Jesus [being magic]."
Your country seems to be religiously tightening it's asshole. In which I mean they're both doing it often, and using religion to do it.
I tried to put as few jokes and nonsense in there as possible.
Anyways. This is no longer on topic of what it was supposed to be. Let's try meander our way back.