Talk:Epic Fail

Original poster couldn't tell the difference between "Black Rifle Company" and "Black Rifle Coffee Company", and thought the Government of Canada couldn't tell the difference either. No failures here - at least, not on Canada's part.

Seems to me "create list of guns to ban, wind up including coffee and toys" is a failure, and a spectacular/unusual one at that. Why isn't it?

(takes Mod hat off, puts Canadian-citizen hat on)

What are you talking about?

Apparently 2dgirlfan is completely unaware that practically every piece of legislation passed in any nation that has a senate/parliament/etc. is riddled with riders and addenda that have nothing to do with the primary purpose of the bill and exist solely as quid pro quos made in order to get support. He feels that the presence of such in Prime Minister Trudeau's recent gun control law -- excuse me, "act of dictatorial fiat" (snrk, chortle, snort) -- somehow makes said law qualify as an epic fail. Of course, in that case, virtually all legislation, including that of which he approves, is also an epic fail, in some cases demonstrably far more epic and far more failing than the example he chose for his impotent political rant.

Well, this particular list was issued as an Order in Council, not legislation. (Think "executive order" in the States and you won't be too far wrong.)

As for the original question, it appears to be referencing an article on a site called "Def-Con News", which refuses to let me read the article itself so I have to go with the summary at DuckDuckGo. The story does not appear to exist on any other news network, and I'm including Fox News in that list.

@2dgirlfan, I strongly suggest you double-check your sources of information. It looks to me like you fell for a hoax.

Well, then, the more fool I -- I actually assumed his information was accurate. It doesn't change my main point -- that riders exist on every piece of legislation -- but I should have taken a moment to check that the point of his rant was even true. It wouldn't be the first time 2dgirlfan stumbled over a hoax intended to inflame, got inflamed, and rushed here to post an "example" of a trope as way of ranting about it.

I was under the impression that the ban wasn't enacted by vote of parliament. Did it? I never found anything indicating it was "passed" by anything but the whim of a head of state, and Trudeau's language quoted in every source I find indicates there was no vote. Skipping parliament (read:senate) is, by definition, dictatorial regardless of if it sounds negative or if the head was given that power by the senate previously (recall that Rome's dictator was chosen by the senate).

All of that is irrelevant however. The central point on this being epic fail is not the autocratic ban or if it was even autocratic, its that the ban was authored by someone who knew so little about firearms they included coffee by mistake. Is there any dispute on the ban including coffee? Is it somehow a normal failure to thing coffee is a type of firearm?

edit: Also I'm not sure how you can only find def-con news articles on it. Literally every major firearms news site (The Truth About Guns, Firearms Blog, Ammoland ect.) and some outside it (Breitbart) covered the contents of the ban and that Trudeau seems to have just willed it into being, I linked to a Canada Gazette listing of the full ban list, and the ban on coffee was identified by the coffee company itself. Perhaps you're not finding them because the same ban included websites (see (z.085) in the linked Gazette article), and your search results reflect that? That your search engine being one that has altered its results to bolster establishment media and won't find websites dedicated to firearms (which most search engine companies consider taboo).

@2dgirlfan, before you start throwing accusations around, you really need to learn the facts.

First, the ban was enacted under the authority of S.C. 1995, c. 39, a law that has been in force for two and a half decades. There was nothing dictatorial about it.

Second, this was an election issue in the last election. The process of creating the list has been taking place since then; it was not "willed into being".

Third, while many sources including Breitbart reported on the existence of the ban itself, only def-con said anything about coffee. "Is there any dispute on the ban including coffee?" Yes, that is the crux of the dispute, especially considering that only one site - a site with an obvious bias against this measure - is making that claim. We have a Trope for that, but it isn't Epic Fail; it's Strawman Political.

Fourth, I use DuckDuckGo for my web searches. That search engine (a) makes a policy of not altering results, and (b) is not located within Canada.

The only Epic Fail I see here is on your part, for falling hook, line, and sinker for an obvious hoax.

Now can we stop wasting time on this and turn our attention to things that are based in reality?

Oh, yes... "Skipping parliament (read:senate)". While you're doing research, do some about exactly what the Senate does and does not do.

I'll give you a free hint on this one: The English version of their official website is at https://sencanada.ca/en

As I said, the coffee actually came from the coffee company's own Twitter (which if you look at the edit was directly linked to) and can be viewed in the ban itself (which was also linked). Your claim Def-Con is the only place to report it is factually wrong and requires completely ignoring the initiating edit.

The verbage used is ultimately irrelevant to the inclusion. I don't care how it's described in the end. I will not however concede that the wording is not an accurate description, even if lacking in tact, in terms of the English language. If previous (or even current but unofficial) agreement by parliament to give that power meant it wasn't dictatorial, the Roman dictators weren't Dictators because the senate's gave them that power and title in advance. The limited nature of the power given doesn't disqualify it either, as a good number of Rome's dictators weren't "general purpose" dictators, and some even had the position revoked.

We are far off-topic here. And you have provided no evidence for your position - you haven't even provided the name of this alleged coffee company. My decision stands.

You are free to appeal my decision to any other moderator.

@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Likewise, as the admin to delete the passage in the first place, my decision also stands.

Yeah, gonna stand with the other mods on this.

@Robkelk Haven't provided the name? As I said multiple times, I linked to Black Rifle Coffee Company's Twitter in the edit. Did you even read the edit in dispute before you wrote multiple paragraphs arguing about it? I don't even care about the contents of the page anymore, but the implication you didn't even read something you're arguing about so strongly...

I asked in the second post in this thread "What are you talking about?" At no time until after I confirmed my decision did anybody say you're talking about a deleted edit. I'm not a mind-reader, and I don't have time to go trawling through logs unless somebody tells me that there's a reason to do so.

I asked for information, and I acted on the information you provided in reply to my request.

EDIT: Here is the relevant (and official) issue of the '"Canada Gazette. I do not see "Black Rifle Coffee Company" listed anywhere in it. I do see "Black Rifle Company", which is as different from "Black Rifle Coffee Company" as "2dfan" is different from "2dgirlfan".

We're done here. I'm closing this thread.