Spank them.

Sure, and? Headlines in this community are supposed to be funny, not just unusual.

How is this Not The Onion?

A bidet, you should buy a bidet.

Because Tokyo keeps getting immigrants from the countryside to cancel out its disastrously low birthrates.

I mean most of the world has no idea what a school shooting is. They’re an almost uniquely American phenomenon.

Meanwhile me thinking what the Gulf Cooperation Council has to do with AI code.

The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.

Uh… therefore?

Please point out an armed revolution that wasn’t just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control.

I’m not sure how that’s relevant here. Most revolutions tend to be about wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control, but also: Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland*2, decolonization in general. There’s also two Frances (1830, 1848) but those are more iffy.

The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn’t happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.

They’re not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters.

Except heavily armed populaces have resisted SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters before, but also: Even just forcing escalation to such methods is a win for the rebels/resistance/etc. There’s a reason even oppressive governments don’t jump straight to tanks and helicopters when they have a revolution that hasn’t quite devolved into civil war. Besides, there’s no guarantee the people manning the tanks and helicopters are going to be willing to fire into crowds. In a revolutionary scenario the government’s grip on its armed forces tends to be shaky at best, and doing things like whipping out tanks to put down rebellion tends to alienate people who might’ve supported it otherwise. Hell, sometimes governments just give up instead of going through all this. Obviously armed revolution (which doesn’t necessarily mean civil war) isn’t foolproof, but the hurdle to winning isn’t as big as people around here seem to think, since the very fact that such a thing is happening means there’s a sympathetic cause that will make some fraction of the army/police/etc not want to fight.

I’m talking about Americans that don’t like what the government is doing (there’s a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There’s plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.

You can’t assume a correlation from one data point. If it’s the guns, then that’ll show up in data from other countries too. When’s the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Yemen?

I mean obviously, but with popular will you’ll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It’s possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.

Well that’s one hell of a non-sequitur. To make a sweeping generalization, it’s not the guns’ fault that Americans are cowards.

So just like regular water then.

I mean the US is too lax with access to guns, but they also have many other problems that lead to this. I mean it’s telling that mass shootings don’t really happen anywhere else, even in places with effectively no gun control.

Because there’s no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink; that doesn’t mean water is useless.

That must be quite the surprise to people who only enter romantic relationships with the sex they’re attracted to.

More seriously, sexism is specifically prejudice based on sex, and it’s bad for obvious reasons (the fact that it causes harm to the sex suffering from such prejudice). If you want to expand the definition to include “choosing to do or not do something with someone because of their sex/gender” (we’ll call this sexism+) you’ll have to argue that sexism+ is rooted in regular sexism. This isn’t something you can just assume (well you can, but what can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence).

I mean, if there’s bribing going on there’s no guarantee it’s Messi doing it. Given his long career and the fact he’s (as far as I hear; I don’t watch football) the only one not playing like a thug, I’d say it’s much more likely someone is bribing them for him.

Wow, didn’t expect to see Clevatess here.