Wednesday, January 23, 2013

I'm not against progress

I'm just against stupid and useless "collective" [rolls eyes] governmental action.  We see this in spades with gun control, with "assault weapons bans" that don't actually ban anything, and proposals to limit magazine size - as if you can't change a magazine in 2 seconds.  Stupid and useless.

And proposed by people who want to make themselves feel better by proposing them.  You might be able to stomach it if it were only about guns, but the words "there ought to be a law" come forth from that same upwelling of stupid and useless.  They don't ever think through the consequences of their proposals.

Why don't you kill him?  I have a better idea: I intend to place him in an overly-complex and easily escapable situation and assume that it all goes to plan.

Let's pass a law that mandates high benefit costs for employees who work more than 30 hours a week, and just assume that nobody will reduce employee hours to under 30.  Let's pass a law outlawing certain cosmetic gun features and just assume that nobody will change their designs and sell as many guns as before the law passed.  Let's entirely outlaw some things that people seem to really, really want and just assume that this time it will come out differently than the War On (some) Drugs.  Or Prohibition.

This has actually become my go-to way of dealing with progressives:

I don't oppose gun control, I just oppose stupid and useless laws about guns.

I don't oppose health care, I just oppose stupid and useless laws about health care.

I don't oppose environmental regulation, I just oppose stupid and useless regulations that don't help the environment while they impoverish working class Americans.

And then when they say that their proposals aren't stupid and useless, I open my eyes wide and say Tell me more.

No really - dazzle me.

My experience is that there are two outcomes, either of which is satisfactory.  One is that the person spouting blather will realize it, and their minds will be open to a real discussion on the merits.  For example, you'll be able to talk about guns, gun violence, and self-protection without having to listen to dick jokes.

The second outcome is that the person stops talking to you, which means that you don't have to listen to "smart" ideas about the government doing stupid and useless things.  You're a winner either way.

The trick is to straight up challenge the other person to justify why his proposals are not stupid and useless and then shut the heck up.  If you're as nasty as I am (and don't care about being invited back to the "right" parties) when they finally sputter to a halt - after your increasingly incredulous (but silent) facial expressions - you can turn to a listener, give a knowing wink, and say He really doesn't know, does he?

But you'd never say anything like that because you're not as nasty as I am.  And a good thing, too.


Old NFO said...

And as soon as you challenge them, you're racist, homophobic, etc... sigh

ASM826 said...

I oppose gun control. I'll tell people that if they are cherry picking their way around the Bill of Rights they don't understand the document, the country, or the rule of law.

Additionally, if they have ever taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I expect them to honor it. Anything else makes them no better than a Democrat.

eiaftinfo said...

Yep - good approach. I've used a "give me three things that you like about this" approach . . .

I have fewer liberal friends now . . .

And a more peaceful life as well.

Heavy sigh . . .