Comments

2

pearl wrote

I hate headlines that go "[country] does [x]." Its not very harmful this time, but the article states "Sky News Australia has been pulled off the air by independently-owned Sky New Zealand," which doesn't at all imply New Zealand has done anything; it implies Sky New Zealand has.

This, as most issues do, gets worse when referring to third world nations to the joy of Americans and Europeans, but it stuck out to me this time because of how quickly it contradicts the title.

1

pearl wrote

Nowhere is there mentioned the benefit of preventing hearing losses in millions of target shooters, hunters and bystanders

This seems like a pretty big benefit to me, at the least.

It also seems like it wouldn't hurt to have a quieter gun when pulling a Czolgosz; especially when the anti-suppressor arguments were based entirely on the idea of 'law-abiding society' coming from a pig.

2

pearl wrote

He often replies to nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case. Trying to get through even a fraction of it is exhausting, and because Wikipedia editors are unpaid, there’s little motivation to continue dealing with Sussman’s arguments. So he usually gets his way.

This is a common thing in pretty much any online context; its more harmful in cases like Wikipedia, though, where not responding means that their agenda has been successfully pushed.

There's ultimately no mechanism against it as far as I'm aware; they wear you down until you've no will to continue, and if that fails they rally a dozen others who agree with them to make it even worse.

1

pearl wrote

For others, however, her adoption of “male” methods of violence, and her history of work within male-dominated organizations has illustrated that, like Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice, she has put her fellow women second and “sold out” to patriarchal interests.

Imagine seriously comparing Leila Khaled to Margaret Thatcher.