I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.
"I frankly think implying that jews are persecuted in this country (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same communists you claim to oppose."
Of course you downvote me, you're a bigot and I'm your target victim. You advocated my persecution, and in this case, despite providing a substantive comment you downvoted me-- an act that works to silence me-- because not only are you a bigot you are anti-intellectual.
To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me".
Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group.
First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead, you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted. My question still stands.
Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs of any flavor are a mental illness.
Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownership of guns as a check/balance on the central government. I accept the gun deaths that accompany ownership (accidents, suicide, murders) as I believe the benefit far out ways the cost. I believe this because of what I have seen in countries where there are severe limitations on personal gun ownership. For me it comes down to this: when weapons enter the equation, you are either a Player or you are Furniture. I choose to be a Player.
Fourth and finally, I believe in complete free speech, no exceptions, and as such I in no way wish to limit you, or any person's expression. Still, any time people choose to scoff instead of respond, I can't help but feel they need to return to their seat and pay better attention in class before raising their hands.
Buying a gun really only requires filling out a tiny slip, it took me less than 5 minutes and was not invasive in the least. Maybe this varies between states.
Does that tiny slip get filed somewhere, indexed and archived, triggering an invisible trawl through your personal record? Maybe it's the behind-the-scenes stuff that has gun enthusiasts worried.
Getting married certainly does end up getting filed somewhere, etc. It's part of the public record. So does having a child, or buying a house. Advertisers pay good money to figure out who new parents are. Voters are also registered, as are drivers.
Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?
Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?
I suppose it depends on what threats you consider realistic.
Well, you brought it up as something "that [might have] gun enthusiasts worried." Why do you think they consider it realistic enough to mention?
Is it because they don't know just how much data mining governments and companies do to us, and prefer to limit themselves to issues that might reduce their enthusiasm?
In which case it's not really a meaningful objection, since it's true of nearly every hobby. I'm sure that back in the early 1900s some ham radio operators objected to licensing requirements and power limits placed on them. That doesn't mean those were unreasonable restrictions.
> Demonstrating that harm has occurred is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish that the conduct in question amounts to persecution. Rather, the harm
experienced must meet the requisite level of severity.
Things already need to be serious before it can be labeled persecution, which means that any persecution is "safe to acknowledge".
The problem is, "persecution" has a many lay meanings, including "any negative social consequence". Felons, for example, face social negative social consequences even after their sentence is over. Free speech and free association require that some free speech leads to negative social consequences. Someone who stands on the street corner and advocates the return of miscegenation laws will likely get a cold shoulder from others, and may describe themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't mean it fits the sort of persecution described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution . Or at http://z9.io/2005/04/14/debian-sarge-php4-and-apache2-why-do... we see someone saying "Debian Sarge, PHP4 and Apache2.. why do you persecute me?", where "persecute" is not meant in the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted for not following participating in flag pledges.
If we go with that lay definition of persecution then clearly some forms of persecution are not only acceptable but encouraged. However, that definition is mostly meaningless and unactionable. Just because the local golf club members feel persecuted because they the city law prevents them from getting enough water to keep the grass green doesn't mean they are a persecuted social group, even if others in the town chastise them for wasting water during a drought. Using that very broad definition we can see that extremely few types of persecution end up with death camps. Or for that matter, rarely grow at all.
Facing disadvantages and being persecuted are differences of a significant magnitude.
Besides, we're currently in the middle of several moral panics. Most of them come and go, but it feels like things are really bad when you're in the midst of them.
Firstly, we must draw an important subtle distinction between oppression and persecution. Oppression implies a deliberate and prolonged attack on a group's rights, whereas persecution implies some active vendetta against a group on top of that, beyond merely enforcing the oppressed status.
As for your question, that strongly depends on which jurisdiction we're talking about. Where the United States is concerned, I would say the latter is true, but not the former.
