I was trying to communicate that we should assume best intentions and not that someone is stupid and “privileged.” I put privileged in quotes not because it doesn’t exist, it does, but assuming someone’s privilege is not a good idea and few know others well enough to do so.

Keeping the political and social narratives focused on fights for basic rights ensures that no one passes laws that impact the ruling class.

Kinda like the Trump era tax cut, or how minimum wage hasn't changed. Meanwhile all everyone is talking about is guns and abortion.

People don't have to do what anyone believes is best for them. They don't need anyone pressuring them to behave a certain way. They don't need that from society, or anybody. What they wear is their's to choose. What they spend time on is their own. They can do whatever and be whoever and nobody else is in any way an authority of what is or isn't good for anyone other than themselves.

Edit: I changed single person wording to reflect the actual purpose of the message.

>like one just did in Texas

This could have happened in any state, including New York City or San Francisco or Seatle or any other liberal city and you know it. You are arguing unfairly.

>if you feel shame as a result of this, look inward and ask why, because nobody here is shaming you for simply being privileged

I didn't say that I felt that way. This is yet again another way that you are using ad hominem attacks by saying that I feel shame.

I'm sorry that you feel that you have to try to use shame to shut down dialogue.

And you seem to indicate that I am privileged. How do you know I am not a black lesbian trans woman? You have no idea.

All I am asking of you is to have a dialogue without using loaded language.

.

As it says in wikipedia:

*Loaded Language:*

"Loaded language (also known as loaded terms, strong emotive language, high-inference language and language-persuasive techniques) is rhetoric used to influence an audience by using words and phrases with strong connotations. This type of language is very often made vague to more effectively invoke an emotional response and/or exploit stereotypes. Loaded words and phrases have significant emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning."

And read again the last sentence.

*Ad hominem attacks*

Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.

Dog whistle language

In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition. The concept is named after ultrasonic dog whistles, which are audible to dogs but not humans. Dog whistles use language that appears normal to the majority but communicates specific things to intended audiences.

Choosing broadly appealing words such as "family values", which has extra resonance for Christians, while avoiding overt Christian moralizing that might be a turn-off for non-Christian voters. Same with many words on the left.

Code words

A code word is a word or a phrase designed to convey a predetermined meaning to an audience who know the phrase, while remaining inconspicuous to the uninitiated.

.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not familiar with these terms, but now that you are, maybe you will use discussions to the fairness of both sides of the discussion.

And to repeat, I'm not really taking sides in the actual argument. I'm saying that your language usage is unfair, both to the original person you responded to, and to me in response to my last comment.

If you have more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you didn't use the automatic words of things like "privilege," "white supremacy," "transphobic," "toxic masculinity," "patriarchy," and all those types of language.

But it is a free world, we have free speech, you can do as you wish. I'm just asking this as one rational person to hopefully another.

So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.

Seriously?

I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc.

People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right).

Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed.

And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time.

So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?