@mdk I'm confused. Who said that it was right for someone to commit violence if they dislike someone else?
Know what, I got a little freedom boner and somehow the "Social consequences like Milo" --> "Charlie Hebdo should've seen it coming" --> "I agree, responsibility etc." chain sorta triggered it. I'm REEEEEEEing like a Berkley student over here. I'd say "disregard all that," but actually I still kinda feel like it's worth saying, so instead let's just pretend like I was directing that towards AntiFa and everybody can agree with me and totally virtue-signal the Constitution.
To the thread in general -- I'm hearing a lot of "Well the government shouldn't step in and protect you from violence." And I'm just sitting here like.... I mean, that's pretty much all I want the government doing. Let's reverse the situation for perspective -- let's say a newly married interractial gay couple stands on a street corner in (insert stereotypical redneck cartoon location here -- South Carolina? Is that how liberals think South Carolina is?) and somehow communicates to another human being that they don't believe in Jesus. Are you truly arguing that the gay couple have no rights to personal safety? No rights to protection? The police should just let whatever happens happen, because hey, they shoulda knowed better?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"Freedom, but then you're fair game" is an abridgment of freedom. To that I say no, absolutely not. Controversial speech is the speech most in need of protection, and Uncle Sam had damn well better protect it. Literally being murdered by the roomfull for publishing a cartoon should not be considered a "logical consequence," from which no protection is deserved. That's downright lunatic. Like.... legitimately, what the actual fuck are some of you on right now?
America's crime rate is also tied to lots of gang/cartel/syndicate type groups which either (a) follow the money, (b) just walk across the gigantic undefended border, and/or (c) developed as a massive side-effect of segregation and swallowed up whole communities in cyclical violence. And (d) not so much anymore, but prohibition and the widespread cultural glamorization of the bootleggers and smugglers who fed us booze is probably still having some impact on the crime landscape, even though that was a while back. But you can certainly draw parallels to modern drug policies.
It's even possible using the Nerdist's math -- he did everything assuming the bullet enters at a 90-degree angle to the blade. Let's say it enters at a 0-degree angle -- now the bullet is traveling down the full length of the lightsaber. He didn't do the math, but it's a pretty easy extrapolation -- that bullet is vaporized. So if the question is "CAN IT," then yes. Absolutely. From what angle can it be done -- I'd have to do math, and I don't feel like doing math, but it wouldn't take long -- calculate the distance a bullet would have to travel through a lightsaber blade under these assumptions, then use that as the hypotenuse of a right triangle with a base of (saber width) and length of X. Solve for X, you find the max angle of total vaporization.
But also: the way he's defining his saber traits is very suspect. Very small sample size, poorly justified, and ignoring a whole boatload of contrary evidence -- sabers demonstrate hard properties when they clash, what drives that material behavior and how would it affect a high-energy projectile impact?
I think you might be confusing patriotism with nationalism. Or, you're using nationalism in one of its lesser known definitions, I suppose, which is being patriotic. Usual nationalism is thinking your country is superior and foreigners are lesser peoples.
That's some 1984 newspeak bullshit, and the same will be done to patriotism shortly. Nationalism is pride in one's national heritage. This is good.
By tribalism vs nationalism, do you mean social groups vs national groups?
I mean that all our social problems seem to vanish whenever there's a rally-round-the-flag. Almost as though putting your country first was healthy for one's relationship with their countrymen. It's been true in America for quite a while, I mean, so long as one ignores the Civil War......
...but historically, the rise of nationalism solved all sorts of tribal problems in Europe. Not all of them, obviously, but it was a major advance. Now with the EU in charge, nationalism has been bleeding to death and -- well gosh, it's almost like this has had deadly consequences.