Side Notes – Page 4 – A Geek With Guns

You Can Just Say Any Old Shit These Days

One of the “wonders” of the modern United States is that you can just say any old shit and get away with it:

Bonafide patriot woman and “Fox & Friends” middle-seat host Ainsley Earhardt made an oopsie during a Thursday morning rallying cry for America when she made reference to the never-existent “communist Japan.”

[…]

“You know, we defeated communist Japan, radical Islamists. We ask our men and women to go overseas to fight for our country and sacrifice so much for our country so we can be the land of the free, the land of the brave,” the host said.

This is an example of a very prevalent phenomenon here in the United States, and from what I’ve seen the rest of the world, where people feel free to talk authoritatively about shit they know nothing about.

I’m currently reading a book on the history of Japan from the Meiji Restoration to modern times. I just got to the beginning of World War II. Although I was vaguely familiar with this aspect of Japanese history, after reading the chapters dealing with the 1920s through the 1930s I now understand just how anti-communist the Japanese government was at that time (and that attitude didn’t stop in the 1940s). This doesn’t surprise me since the Japanese government at the time was strongly focused on the emperor and communists hate emperors (the name specifically, they prefer the term chairman or premier).

Now that I’ve read that part of the book and have familiarity with the topic, I won’t shy away from talking about it. However, before that I would have shied away from talking about the Japanese government at that time because I wasn’t very familiar with it and I try to avoid talking authoritatively about things that I’m not familiar with. I also feel that I’m in the minority when it comes to that.

Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires

Many socialists like the say that advocates of capitalism only advocate capitalism because they see themselves not as members of the lower and middle classes but as future millionaires.

Of course, most of the socialists who say that don’t see themselves as members of the lower and middle classes but as future members of the politburo.

The Psychological Impact of the Atomic Bomb

August 6th was the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Many people posted about it. Many people pointed out that it was a heinous act because an estimated 39,000 to 80,000 people, most of whom were civilians, were killed.

Meanwhile the firebombing campaign against Tokyo, which resulted in the death of approximately 100,000 civilians, is seldom mentioned.

My point here isn’t to judge people for mentioning one without mentioning the other. It’s to illustrate that the psychological impact of the atomic bomb was so great that we still feel compelled to discuss the matter today even when we don’t have the same compulsion towards other acts that lead to even great losses of life.

Nothing to See Here

I was attending the Reddit Moderator Roadshow last night and didn’t have an opportunity to get any posts written.

If you have the opportunity to attend one of their other events, take it. It was a ton of fun.

Public Relations Nightmare

I imagine that MGM’s public relations people are having a rough day:

The owner of the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas has filed a lawsuit against more than 1,000 victims of a mass shooting that killed 58 people in 2017.

It turns out that MGM Resorts International is being sued by groups of victims of the Las Vegas shooter and this lawsuit is an attempt to establish that it is not liable for the harm caused by the shooter. Good luck to MGM’s public relations people on explaining that though.

Bad Analogies

If there was an annual award for worst analogy, this article would win it hands down:

Venezuela’s inflation hits more than 40,000% as everyone dumps its currency ‘like a hot potato’

The last thing anybody in Venezuela is going to drop at the moment is a potato.

Oftentimes It’s Impossible to Determine Who Is Right

When two parties have a disagreement and provide opposing explanations for the disagreement, how do you determine which is giving an accurate explanation and which is giving an inaccurate explanation? If you’re watching the situation from the outside, you often can’t. However, that doesn’t stop individuals from reacting. A good example of this is the recent spat between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Yeti:

The stunt followed a letter to NRA members sent by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action announcing that Yeti had severed ties with the NRA Foundation, following the lead of other companies in the wake of the Feb. 14 Parkland, Fla., shooting massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The letter, sent by former NRA president and current lobbyist Marion P. Hammer, said the company “declined to do business with The NRA Foundation” without prior notice and “refused to say why.”

“They will only say they will no longer sell products to The NRA Foundation,” Hammer wrote. “That certainly isn’t sportsmanlike. In fact, YETI should be ashamed.”

But on Monday, just as the backlash and calls for boycott picked up steam, Yeti said in a statement to The Washington Post, also posted on Yeti’s Facebook account, that the NRA letter was “inaccurate.” The Austin-based retailer said it notified various organizations, including the NRA Foundation, that it was eliminating a “group of outdated discounting programs” from which the organizations benefited.

The NRA was not specifically targeted, Yeti said.

“When we notified the NRA Foundation and the other organizations of this change, YETI explained that we were offering them an alternative customization program broadly available to consumers and organizations, including the NRA Foundation,” Yeti said. “These facts directly contradict the inaccurate statement the NRA-ILA distributed on April 20.”

According to the NRA, Yeti severed business times without prior notification. According to Yeti, it discontinued a group of discounts for multiple organizations and offered a more customization option to those organizations. The NRA then said that Yeti was lying and Yeti in turn said that the NRA was lying. Who should be believed and why?

This is one of the arguments currently being had on numerous online communities. One side claims that the NRA is telling the truth while the other side claims that Yeti is telling the truth. Some of those who believe that the NRA is telling the truth have reacted by destroying Yeti products that they previous purchased. Meanwhile, some of those who believe that Yeti is telling the truth have called those destroying their Yeti products dumbasses.

Realistically, there is no way for those of us outside of the decision making apparatuses of these parties to know the truth. We don’t have access to the agreements between the NRA and Yeti. We don’t have access to the reason why Yeti discontinued its discount program. We don’t have access to the list of other parties that were also supposedly impacted by the discontinuation of the discount program. What we do have are statements made by two disagreeing parties. Trying to determine which of the two is giving an accurate summary of events is like trying to determine which spouse in a messy divorce is giving an accurate summary of the events that lead to the divorce.

Unfortunately, in these situations people tend to side themselves with whichever party they like better. Diehard supporters of the NRA will likely side with the NRA whereas diehard supporters of Yeti will likely side with Yeti. Likewise, people who hate the NRA may side with Yeti whereas people who hate Yeti may side with the NRA. Both sides will justify their position as being made by something other than their personal feelings but those justifications will almost certainly be based on statements made by the party they’re siding with.

I would argue that a better default position would be to side with neither party in a disagreement. Instead of a knee jerk reaction, why not be patient and wait for more information to possibly come to light? After all, what benefit is there from picking a side in an disagreement that doesn’t directly involve you?

Category: Side Notes