Gun Control

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

The article you linked is an opinion piece on the evils of feminism that's laughably bad at even arguing it's own point. It's on the level of a message board rant. Here's the final paragraph, which you'll note has nothing to do with fixing education (or even mentioning education or school) that the article is supposedly about:

 

 

He’s discussing how treating masculinity as toxic and some sort of disease is an educational problem and a societal problem. And he’s right.

[zoogs]

Or — and hear me out here — maybe diagnosing the problem isn’t the problem. Maybe the problem is the problem.

[Danny Bateman]

32 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Speaking of NRA TV ...

Eff these guys, seriously.

 

But, I think it's worth pointing out "Smile more" is not one particularly creepy NRA guy thing. It's not usually said or thought with hand on a gun, and honestly that's a really messed up version of it, but the sentiment is...everywhere. And the like. All the narrow, 1-D ways in which women are expected to be viewed, and punished if they go outside of the lines.

 

Re: the last bit, I agree. She was creeped out not only because he was toting when he said it, but also just the generally hyper-aggressive machismo with which this guy presented himself the entire night. I don't think it's a coincidence that there is a ton of overlap between guys who carry themselves this way & those that feel it's acceptable to bark suggestions at women about how to behave. I'd imagine the Venn diagram is roughly... one circle.

 

But honestly, the NRATV thing is increasingly distressing to me. I noticed the way they were trending back before the 2016 election. It's fair to mention that they above clip is specifically trying to promote a new "show" (one that I hope draws approximately 4 viewers and not a single one more). But what strikes me a lot about the NRA online promotions: Not ONE mention in that clip about guns.

 

They've put out a lot like that recently. For instance, using Orwellian, combative language like "strike back with the clenched fist of truth" and "your time is running out." Seriously? They're overlaying this crap on top of Spaghetti Western showdown music.

 

They're not hocking guns here. They're selling a cultural identity. The NRA has become a bunch of culture warriors in how they hock their message. It's to their tremendous benefit to play the "Us vs. Them" card as much as possible to get people in a tribal, angry, aggrieved, standoffish move. Suddenly it's become the "oppressed, righteous, god-fearing, red-white-and-blue, patriotic gun owners vs. the evil Other that wishes to crush them."

Really, I'm just a guy who just wishes our country were safer. I don't want to oppress or marginalize anybody. But it's not convenient for the NRA to sell that vision.

 

Identity politics has become a primary tool for them, as much as they bemoan it.

 

Here's a Vox piece Howard Dean retweeted earlier, & I happen to think it hits this nail on the head.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

He’s discussing how treating masculinity as toxic and some sort of disease is an educational problem and a societal problem. And he’s right.

He's got an opinion, which you can agree with, but it's one about the evils of feminism. (And he's even wrong about feminism, but I digress.) There's little real discussion of education in that piece. Just accusations of how reactionary the "other side" is, and an appeal to "if only those liberals weren't <insert complaint>" (in this case the complaint is feminists). And there's no discussion of possible solutions. It's a silly right-wing rant.

 

Plus none of that actually supports your original assertion that girls are educated but boys are ignored.

[commando]

 

different lighting in these 2 pictures?

[BigRedBuster]

4 hours ago, RedDenver said:

He's got an opinion, which you can agree with, but it's one about the evils of feminism. (And he's even wrong about feminism, but I digress.) There's little real discussion of education in that piece. Just accusations of how reactionary the "other side" is, and an appeal to "if only those liberals weren't <insert complaint>" (in this case the complaint is feminists). And there's no discussion of possible solutions. It's a silly right-wing rant.

 

Plus none of that actually supports your original assertion that girls are educated but boys are ignored.

OK...Ever since Mr. Flair gave me a home work assignment, I have read a number of articles on what he claims.  And....I do not get from any of them, what he is claiming.

Yes, more girls are enrolling in college.  Yes, girls on average get better grades.  Yes, a higher percentage of girls graduate from HS than boys.  All....of which I knew before reading these articles.

 

Other than that, there is no substance to anything I have seen. I see no evidence that feminism is some how destroying education for male students.  I honestly can not think of one thing in our own school system that holds boys back more from learning Science, math, English....etc than girls.

 

To me, this is a social issue that has absolutely NOTHING to do with feminism and EVERYTHING to do with our own expectations for boys in education.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.  In the last few years, I have known both a boy and a girl who are off the charts smart from our school system.  I know both of them scored well into the 30s on the ACTs (as freshmen and never took it again).  Both were pretty good athletes.  Throughout their HS careers, guess what the story line has been when people talk about them.

 

Boy..."Wow, what a stud athlete.  Man, he is fun to watch play basketball.  Next year, we are going to be very good with him at QB.

 

Girl....."Wow....she is impressive with how smart she is.  It's going to be interesting to see what she does after HS.  Obviously going to make a speech at graduation."

 

See the difference?  Actually, I didn't even know how smart the boy is till his senior year because everyone was always concentrated on his great three point shot.  

 

They are both going to be very successful.  The boy is actually a walk-on on the football team at UNL and the girl is going to an ivy league school next year (hasn't decided which one).

 

My point is, it's society and how we look at boys and girls differently....NOT because of feminism or some built in flaw in our educational system, but because of our idiocy towards boys and what we teach them is important in life.

[RedDenver]

57 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

OK...Ever since Mr. Flair gave me a home work assignment, I have read a number of articles on what he claims.  And....I do not get from any of them, what he is claiming.

Yes, more girls are enrolling in college.  Yes, girls on average get better grades.  Yes, a higher percentage of girls graduate from HS than boys.  All....of which I knew before reading these articles.

 

Other than that, there is no substance to anything I have seen. I see no evidence that feminism is some how destroying education for male students.  I honestly can not think of one thing in our own school system that holds boys back more from learning Science, math, English....etc than girls.

 

To me, this is a social issue that has absolutely NOTHING to do with feminism and EVERYTHING to do with our own expectations for boys in education.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.  In the last few years, I have known both a boy and a girl who are off the charts smart from our school system.  I know both of them scored well into the 30s on the ACTs (as freshmen and never took it again).  Both were pretty good athletes.  Throughout their HS careers, guess what the story line has been when people talk about them.

 

Boy..."Wow, what a stud athlete.  Man, he is fun to watch play basketball.  Next year, we are going to be very good with him at QB.

 

Girl....."Wow....she is impressive with how smart she is.  It's going to be interesting to see what she does after HS.  Obviously going to make a speech at graduation."

 

See the difference?  Actually, I didn't even know how smart the boy is till his senior year because everyone was always concentrated on his great three point shot.  

 

They are both going to be very successful.  The boy is actually a walk-on on the football team at UNL and the girl is going to an ivy league school next year (hasn't decided which one).

 

My point is, it's society and how we look at boys and girls differently....NOT because of feminism or some built in flaw in our educational system, but because of our idiocy towards boys and what we teach them is important in life.

There's another interesting dimension I've read (I think it was in the article I linked before) that one of the factors is that the income difference between  men and women who don't go to college is bigger than the difference between men and women who do go to college. So if a boy and a girl are each deciding whether to go to college (or dropout), the penalty is higher for the girl leading to greater incentive for girls to go to college.

Edited March 5, 2018 by RedDenver

[Danny Bateman]

 

[Moiraine]

To add an anecdote myself, although I don't claim it applies to people in general, my brothers were both smart and unathletic in high school. Guess whether they got made fun of.

 

Or just watch Breakfast Club.

 

 

Not saying I never got made fun of, but I never got made fun of for doing well in school and I don't know of any girl who did. There were some smart guys who did not get fun of but the one that comes to mind was a starter on the soccer team.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Moiraine

[BigRedBuster]

 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

It was just a matter of time.  From the initial announcement there were already people comparing this to the bakers not making a cake for same-sex marriages.

 

My guess is it won't go anywhere.

[zoogs]

I wouldn't bet on that. The law is blind to utility, or at least, it should be. We have a sound conservative majority on the Supreme Court. One of them, Clarence Thomas, has recently been taking his colleagues to task for not taking the same interest in holding accountable laws that step on the 2nd Amendment as laws that step on other rights. The SCOTUS precedent in Obergefell, opposed in incendiary terms by most of their conservative wing and which will now be gleefully applied in service of the gun lobby, asserted that state-level bans on gay marriage infringed on the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment.

 

If we are to hold that the 2nd amendment delineates a right to have guns, as (disappointingly, to me) seems to be a prevailing bipartisan consensus, then if not this particular case there will be something like it, right? One of these cases is going to go somewhere. And as far as the retailer policy goes, they seem good results but it's not as clear to me that they're legally airtight in this insane gun rights world of ours.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the problem. As long as it stands like this, America is a free-wheeling firearm paradise. A Supreme Court that loves guns as much as it loves the idea that gay people are also people, under an administration with the same qualities, could take a major interest in overturning any law or policy restricting gun sales or ownership. And they might succeed.

Edited March 6, 2018 by zoogs

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

There's not enough disgust in the world for what I feel towards these nut jobs:

Pair arrested after harassing pastor in Sutherland Springs

Quote

 

The Wilson County Sheriff’s Office declined to provide charging information on Robert Ussery, 54, who founded conspiracy website Side Thorn, and his partner Jodi Mann, 56, who is referred to as “Conspiracy Granny” online. The booking process was not complete Monday evening and no information would be made available until Tuesday, a supervisor there said.

 

Ussery “continually yelled and screamed and hollered and told me he was gonna hang me from a tree, and pee on me while I’m hanging,” said Frank Pomeroy, the pastor.

 

...

 

The pair believe the church shooting was staged by accomplices of the government, though Pomeroy, whose 14-year-old daughter was killed there, knows better.

 

“He said, ‘Your daughter never even existed. Show me her birth certificate. Show me anything to say she was here,’” Pomeroy said. “I just told him there was enough evidence already visible, so if he chooses not to see that, how would I know he would believe anything else?”

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by RedDenver