Recently, on a YouTube channel I watch, a commenter from Australia asked a question about gun violence in America, and I was off to the races. Quite an animated discussion ensued.
Interestingly, the channel is not a YouTube politics channel. Rather, it's a special interest channel. Think of a channel about sneaker collecting, for example, and you'll get the idea. However, the host is conservative. Most of his guests are conservative. And most regular commenters on the channel are likewise conservative, and they all express their views frequently, such as when talking about markets and financial issues. Normally, I don’t respond to their many right wing statements and comments. And often, I don’t tune in at all, not wanting to reward the channel with more viewership. However, as the transcript below indicates, I spontaneously waded into a fast-moving political discussion on this particular live stream, and I think the exchange demonstrates two things:
Here is the bulk of the conversation that took place:
Finally, I finish my car analogy, in this case applying it to Assault Weapons:
Heller
:
Now, was it worth it to have this discussion? Did I change any minds? Of the hard-core Republicans in the audience, I'm sure the answer is no. However, perhaps a few people who are in the middle were given pause to think. At least it’s a way to identify the other side’s arguments, and hone one’s skills. But note, this sort of exercise can be draining.
Interestingly, the channel is not a YouTube politics channel. Rather, it's a special interest channel. Think of a channel about sneaker collecting, for example, and you'll get the idea. However, the host is conservative. Most of his guests are conservative. And most regular commenters on the channel are likewise conservative, and they all express their views frequently, such as when talking about markets and financial issues. Normally, I don’t respond to their many right wing statements and comments. And often, I don’t tune in at all, not wanting to reward the channel with more viewership. However, as the transcript below indicates, I spontaneously waded into a fast-moving political discussion on this particular live stream, and I think the exchange demonstrates two things:
- The ubiquitous right wing talking points on gun violence
- Our ability to fight back, and even drive the conversation, with Democratic arguments.
Here is the bulk of the conversation that took place:
Note that a couple of the right wing commenters try to use mockery. I don’t think it worked very well.
Are you spotting the usual Republican talking points?
And if you had "Chicago" on your right wing Bingo card ....
Note that YouTube live stream comments can come fast and furious, so a lone commenter like me has trouble keeping up with responses. This is a continuation of the truck analogy:
Great, now the right wingers are advocating anarchy. But curiously, here's the first concession from one of them:
And my continuing car regulation analogy, which I think is a good one whenever the other side trots out the "we don't ban cars" argument:
And someone agrees with R's concession about raising the minimum age for purchasing a semi-automatic weapon to 21:
So much for the Republicans' “rule of law” or “law and order” talking points.
Straw Man Alert! Who knew that people are like sharks, and cannot be expected to follow laws?
Another Straw Man, as the legislative proposals are prospective, rather than taking away guns or rifles that were lawful when purchased.
Finally, I finish my car analogy, in this case applying it to Assault Weapons:
Yes, how about we examine violent right wing white supremacist rhetoric, for example?
I did not get to mention that, before using weapons in the U.S. military, our troops get extensive training from the government.
Gee, so enforcing the law, including prevention, works after all.
And here, a third commenter agrees with raising the purchasing age ...
... and agrees about the maturity of 18 year-olds:
Here’s another Straw Man:
And here's evidence that other countries are not the same as America regarding guns:
“R” now adds to his previous concession:
But here's a misogynistic tell:
I respond to the earlier "criminals will always be getting guns" talking point:
MM: Criminals will always get heroin, will always rob & rape & kidnap. Guess that should be all legal too.♂
Again with the Straw Man, as even an Assault Weapons Ban would only affect a small percentage of guns sold.
Another concession from "R":
Now I get to mock the other side's talking points:
Again, I'm on offense:
Remember what worked so well for liberal talk show host Mike Signorile was what I called "first the facts, then attack."
... prompting me to quote
Heller
:
... leading to another concession:
You've probably read enough by now. My biggest takeaway from the discussion is that I had arguments and responses that I could deploy in live time. That's after lots of exposure to them. However, it's clear that Fox "News" and other right wing media outlets have done their jobs. Just look at the mentions here of "Chicago," for example, and other racist tropes. But note that some on the other side volunteered a concession: raising the age of purchasing semi-automatic weapons to 21. In such cases, maybe we should grab that low-hanging fruit and pass stand-alone legislation.
Now, was it worth it to have this discussion? Did I change any minds? Of the hard-core Republicans in the audience, I'm sure the answer is no. However, perhaps a few people who are in the middle were given pause to think. At least it’s a way to identify the other side’s arguments, and hone one’s skills. But note, this sort of exercise can be draining.
What happens when countries run out of cash? They either go commie or they go fash! Print money.