|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military.
Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.)
|
On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military.
I'll take "what are wide-sweeping sexist generalizations?" for $100, Alex.
|
On August 09 2019 10:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:46 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Yes both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity can be problems. Just a quick example of each: Good masculinity - strength, courage, dominance Toxic masculinity - trying to assert dominance unnecessarily and being over-belligerent (Trump does this to other public figures) Good femininity - nurturing, compassion Toxic femininity - over-protectiveness and mollycoddling, resulting in vitiation of natural ability to deal with adversity
That's not toxic, at all. The masculine one is though: "Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity Toxic masculinity doesn't just mean qualities that you don't agree with.
Likewise the socialization of girls normalizes passive-aggressiveness, outcasting and spreading rumors about targets. The bullying is less physical but does exist and has severe social consequences for the victims.
By claiming that only masculinity is toxic and femininity can't be, you are being very sexist and misandrist!
P.S. we have deviated from the thread's topic, maybe it's better to discuss this in the US politics mega-thread 
|
Northern Ireland25237 Posts
On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military.
I wouldn’t personally consider any of that toxic, personally anyway.
I don’t particularly agree with pre-subscribed masculine and feminine characteristics and how they’re used to deploy various arguments.
How I would personally view either toxic masculinity or toxic femininity would be how individuals within a society act accordingly to the societal confines of gender expectation, to the detriment of others.
Which for men usually equates in needless violence and machismo, but women are happy to exploit sexual capital for their own game and various other things.
|
On August 09 2019 10:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. Sexism and misandry is alive and well, I see.
Pointing out that men have more societal power than women is not misandry. But I agree with you that sexism is obviously alive and well, and I'm sure that some people are misandrists.
|
On August 09 2019 11:01 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:46 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Yes both toxic masculinity and toxic femininity can be problems. Just a quick example of each: Good masculinity - strength, courage, dominance Toxic masculinity - trying to assert dominance unnecessarily and being over-belligerent (Trump does this to other public figures) Good femininity - nurturing, compassion Toxic femininity - over-protectiveness and mollycoddling, resulting in vitiation of natural ability to deal with adversity
That's not toxic, at all. The masculine one is though: "Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered "toxic" due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization of boys often normalizes violence, such as in the saying "boys will be boys" with regard to bullying and aggression." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity Toxic masculinity doesn't just mean qualities that you don't agree with. Likewise the socialization of girls normalizes passive-aggressiveness, outcasting and spreading rumors about targets. The bullying is less physical but does exist and has severe social consequences for the victims. By claiming that only masculinity is toxic and femininity can't be, you are being very sexist and misandrist! P.S. we have deviated from the thread's topic, maybe it's better to discuss this in the US politics mega-thread
Good point! We've definitely gone off track lol.
|
On August 09 2019 10:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did".
He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military. Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.)
Masculinity places a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while femininity is more collectivist and socialist.
Also, look at the gender breakdown of voting patterns. Even within men as a group, low-testosterone men are more likely to vote democrat.
It's true that hormones influence people's behaviors and mental states, ultimately playing a role in shaping political views.
|
On August 09 2019 11:06 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:
[quote]
Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic.
On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism.
The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings!
Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military. Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.) Masculinity places a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while femininity is more collectivist and socialist. Also, look at the gender breakdown of voting patterns. Even within men as a group, low-testosterone men are more likely to vote democrat. It's true that hormones influence people's behaviors and mental states, ultimately playing a role in shaping political views.
I'm not sure if all those assertions are true, and I feel like there are plenty of liberal and conservative issues that are independent of those norms anyway, but I agree with you that this is off topic for the thread, so I'm going to back out of the current conversation
|
On August 09 2019 11:06 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:
[quote]
Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic.
On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism.
The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings!
Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military. Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.) Masculinity places a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while femininity is more collectivist and socialist. Also, look at the gender breakdown of voting patterns. Even within men as a group, low-testosterone men are more likely to vote democrat. It's true that hormones influence people's behaviors and mental states, ultimately playing a role in shaping political views.
Didn't most white women vote Trump? Either way this is just nonsense. Nearly all the "chad" actors and musicians are liberal. Now if you told me most right wingers were dorkier and less creative, I'd believe ya
|
On August 09 2019 11:06 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 10:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:
[quote]
Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic.
On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism.
The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings!
Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military. Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.) Masculinity places a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while femininity is more collectivist and socialist.
There are several issues with your post, the main one in my mind being that the main form of socialism is individualist, while a lot of rightwing ideologies rely on some form of collectivism (centered around the nation, the religion/values, or even the family).
|
You guys are taking wayyy too cold into this "daddy is a republican mommy is a democrat" nonsense then anyone was supposed to get. Its a stupid read from the 60's when the great society project overreached and people who didn't grow up in the great depression started to form the majority. From when the nation was so rich and affluent after the world wars that it didn't need to lift everyone up and could target the ones left behind (black people) and because the majority wasn't left behind (most people weren't black and weren't fond of black people) the post World war democratic dominance collapsed into the Nixon-Reagon era.
Daddy is the Party of strengthening the military the moral breakdown and being generally suspicious of change and the other (mostly black people in the early days of Nixon) While Mommy is the party of welfare and entitlements to help people.
On August 09 2019 13:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 11:06 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 09 2019 10:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 10:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 09 2019 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2019 09:27 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself. That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist. The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things. Trump's racism and xenophobia and misogyny are not matters of interpretation. And toxic femininity isn't a thing. Toxic masculinity is though. How is it not? I feel it’s invoked more to criticise critiques of toxic masculinity but that obvious deflection aside I don’t feel it’s entirely without basis. Because the conventional definition of "toxic masculinity" refers to the general patriarchy's perpetuation of systemic masculine stereotypes and norms that have historically hurt groups of people (both men and women). While it's true that feminine stereotypes could also be harmful, it's the fact that any sexual or gender norms are reinforced by the privileged group in power (men) that differentiates them. If women held a near-monopoly on power, then it could be the case that toxic femininity existed without toxic masculinity, as the women would still be in charge of which pro-woman and pro-men norms to reinforce. I disagree that women have to hold sway in the corridors of overall societal power for ‘toxic femininity’ not being a real phenomenon. Our human relations exist far beyond political or economic power, and at certain strata women exert plenty of power socially. That is correct. With the deterioration of the nuclear family unit as the basis of society in western countries, there are an increasing number of children living with single mothers. Add that to the fact that most educators are female or less masculine men who are left-leaning in political views. Children in the west are more indoctrinated with left-wing feminine norms than masculine ones. Men hold the power in most corporate organizations and branches of the government such as the military. Are you saying that left-leaning views are more feminine than right-wing ones? Could you please elaborate on this? (I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that conservatives tend to be far more misogynistic socially, especially when it comes to women's rights, than liberals, but I'm wondering if you had any other examples.) Masculinity places a greater emphasis on personal responsibility while femininity is more collectivist and socialist. There are several issues with your post, the main one in my mind being that the main form of socialism is individualist, while a lot of rightwing ideologies rely on some form of collectivism (centered around the nation, the religion/values, or even the family).
The main form of socialism is social ownership. Thats inherently communal, I mean I can try to wrap my mind around why you think nationalism, basic value systems(?) or even how families are collectivist, but there's no way I can understand how you get socialism as an individualistic ideology.
|
On August 09 2019 15:09 Sermokala wrote:
The main form of socialism is social ownership. Thats inherently communal, I mean I can try to wrap my mind around why you think nationalism, basic value systems(?) or even how families are collectivist, but there's no way I can understand how you get socialism as an individualistic ideology.
Why do you think it's inherently communal?
We're going with collectivism as prioritization of a group over its individual members. I'm guessing the group in question would be class, specifically the working class? But that isn't how class is perceived in socialist theory, the idea isn't that you should develop class consciousness because your class in the social hierarchy should be more important than your individuality, the idea is that it is more important than your individuality right now, and this should be fought against.
It is fairly easy to see how a racial hierarchy of humans goes against individualism, as it limits the freedom of action of the group that is deemed inferior. The same is true of a hierarchy based on class, for the same reason. If you're being exploited and focus all of your energy on finding just enough money to live, it's unlikely that you're realizing all of your potential as an individual. Oppositely, I'm fairly sure Bezos is living his best life.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On August 08 2019 21:42 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 17:17 deacon.frost wrote:On August 08 2019 11:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 08 2019 08:56 FFGenerations wrote:
i have no fucking idea why someone hasn't killed this trump piece of shit yet
it baffles me not that im condoning this but im honestly genuinely surprised there hasnt been an assassination attempt on trump yet. Why so? US is not Czech Republic, where you try to assassinate the president and then you give interview to newspapares  You would be killed really fast and probably don't harm him anyway. (that was a true story, some person aimed and shot an airsoft handgun and was successfull, then gave interview to the news and the next day went to work like nothing happened, welcome to the country where nobody takes anything seriously imagine aiming a gun at the US president and walking away ) Anyway, I find this discussion in a topic about shooting rather uncivil(cannot find better word) well for starters the US already has a history of assassination attempts and successful assassinations. now i wasnt alive for the assassination of jfk for example, but id assume that the targets of these attempts were also far less provocative than trump. its one thing to criticise the work of a "bad" president, but when the character of the president is one of the biggest problems then its a whole new level of serious. and as far as assassination attempts go, i wasnt necessarily saying that i wasnt surprised that there hasnt been one in the US only. dislike, even hatred, of trump is easily found throughout the rest of the world, so much in fact that i dont remember a support for a US president being this polarised ever. so basically what im saying is if there was ever to be an assassination attempt against someone in the modern day, it is far more likely that trump would be the target considering the amount of damage he does to the entire world not just as president but as a leader and role model. like i said, i wouldnt condone such acts but its very easy to understand the motive if it were to happen.
Different times, different technical featurers(nowadays you have cameras everywhere, your phone tracks your location, you can't trust it to not spy on you via its microphone, same applies if you have a laptop with a camera etc.) JFK rode in an open limo, nowadays?  I'm not saying it's impossible, but with nowadays survilence possibilities and how much the security went up it's way harder to do it.
|
Directly related to mass shootings: The worry that someone decked out like Rambo in public is going to commit one...
Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. The Springfield Police Department says it responded to a call of an active shooter at the Walmart Neighborhood Market at Republic Rd., near Golden Ave., Thursday evening.
The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a former firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition.
Police also observed many shoppers hiding outside the Walmart and at nearby businesses.
Lieutenant Mike Lucas said it was clear the man's intent was to cause chaos, saying in part, "His intent was not to cause peace or comfort...He's lucky he's alive still, to be honest."
Police identified the man's vehicle and are investigating the possibility of more firearms inside the vehicle.
https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Heavy-police-presence-at-Walmart-Neighborhood-Market-in-south-Springfield-528602951.html?fbclid=IwAR2jOSR7h85Vt4wl6eihhrVlh1IbkaPuWhTOdG-U4A-f2r3NOwsrYR_yN5o
This guy wasn't actually shooting anyone, but he certainly "fit the profile" of a potential mass shooter: young, white man carrying a gun and ammunition. I wonder how outraged the pro-gun community would become if everyone started calling the police on people who were open carrying and subjectively looking like a perceived threat. Probably about as outraged as the black community, when they're driving or walking or grilling or breathing "suspiciously".
|
On August 09 2019 15:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 15:09 Sermokala wrote:
The main form of socialism is social ownership. Thats inherently communal, I mean I can try to wrap my mind around why you think nationalism, basic value systems(?) or even how families are collectivist, but there's no way I can understand how you get socialism as an individualistic ideology. Why do you think it's inherently communal? We're going with collectivism as prioritization of a group over its individual members. I'm guessing the group in question would be class, specifically the working class? But that isn't how class is perceived in socialist theory, the idea isn't that you should develop class consciousness because your class in the social hierarchy should be more important than your individuality, the idea is that it is more important than your individuality right now, and this should be fought against. It is fairly easy to see how a racial hierarchy of humans goes against individualism, as it limits the freedom of action of the group that is deemed inferior. The same is true of a hierarchy based on class, for the same reason. If you're being exploited and focus all of your energy on finding just enough money to live, it's unlikely that you're realizing all of your potential as an individual. Oppositely, I'm fairly sure Bezos is living his best life.
I don't think its inherently communal it just is. Social ownership of equity creates a community that owns equity. Unless you want to follow it to communism where everyone owns everything somehow.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is individualistic in its main form and its loosening is way more associated with the right then the left.
|
On August 10 2019 00:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 15:58 Nebuchad wrote:On August 09 2019 15:09 Sermokala wrote:
The main form of socialism is social ownership. Thats inherently communal, I mean I can try to wrap my mind around why you think nationalism, basic value systems(?) or even how families are collectivist, but there's no way I can understand how you get socialism as an individualistic ideology. Why do you think it's inherently communal? We're going with collectivism as prioritization of a group over its individual members. I'm guessing the group in question would be class, specifically the working class? But that isn't how class is perceived in socialist theory, the idea isn't that you should develop class consciousness because your class in the social hierarchy should be more important than your individuality, the idea is that it is more important than your individuality right now, and this should be fought against. It is fairly easy to see how a racial hierarchy of humans goes against individualism, as it limits the freedom of action of the group that is deemed inferior. The same is true of a hierarchy based on class, for the same reason. If you're being exploited and focus all of your energy on finding just enough money to live, it's unlikely that you're realizing all of your potential as an individual. Oppositely, I'm fairly sure Bezos is living his best life. I don't think its inherently communal it just is. Social ownership of equity creates a community that owns equity. Unless you want to follow it to communism where everyone owns everything somehow. Capitalism, on the other hand, is individualistic in its main form and its loosening is way more associated with the right then the left.
The existence of a community can't negate individualism, otherwise individualism is nonsense. It is fairly easy for me to think of socialist systems where the equity isn't collectively owned, so I'm not sure how to have this conversation. Sounds like some anticommunist (soviet style) talking points are involved.
Meanwhile in the manifesto, "The free and full development of each is the precondition for the free and full development of all"... or even more famous, from each according to ability to each according to need... we're pretty clearly talking fulfillment of people on an individual level, there isn't a lot of ambiguity there.
|
On August 09 2019 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Directly related to mass shootings: The worry that someone decked out like Rambo in public is going to commit one... Show nested quote +Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. The Springfield Police Department says it responded to a call of an active shooter at the Walmart Neighborhood Market at Republic Rd., near Golden Ave., Thursday evening.
The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a former firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition.
Police also observed many shoppers hiding outside the Walmart and at nearby businesses.
Lieutenant Mike Lucas said it was clear the man's intent was to cause chaos, saying in part, "His intent was not to cause peace or comfort...He's lucky he's alive still, to be honest."
Police identified the man's vehicle and are investigating the possibility of more firearms inside the vehicle. https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Heavy-police-presence-at-Walmart-Neighborhood-Market-in-south-Springfield-528602951.html?fbclid=IwAR2jOSR7h85Vt4wl6eihhrVlh1IbkaPuWhTOdG-U4A-f2r3NOwsrYR_yN5o This guy wasn't actually shooting anyone, but he certainly "fit the profile" of a potential mass shooter: young, white man carrying a gun and ammunition. I wonder how outraged the pro-gun community would become if everyone started calling the police on people who were open carrying and subjectively looking like a perceived threat. Probably about as outraged as the black community, when they're driving or walking or grilling or breathing "suspiciously".
Fits the profile of a good guy with a gun, too. There will still be millions of guns in the country if they’re banned, but then you’d have someone intent on criminal mayhem carrying, and the firefighter disarmed.
I applaud the good guy with a gun. I hope America continues to protect his right to purchase and bear his firearm in public for his whole life, and that he passes that noble tradition down to children.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 10 2019 01:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Directly related to mass shootings: The worry that someone decked out like Rambo in public is going to commit one... Former firefighter stops man armed with 100 rounds of ammunition at south Springfield Walmart
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. The Springfield Police Department says it responded to a call of an active shooter at the Walmart Neighborhood Market at Republic Rd., near Golden Ave., Thursday evening.
The Springfield Police Department arrived on scene within three minutes of the call. Police stated that a young white male, appearing to be in his twenties, pulled up to the Walmart, where he donned body armor and military fatigues. Police say the man had tactical weapons.
Police then say the man walked into the Walmart: Neighborhood Market where he grabbed a cart and began pushing it around the store. Police say the man was recording himself walking through the store via a cell phone.
The store manager at the Neighborhood Market pulled a fire alarm, urging people to escape the store.
Police say the man then made his way out an emergency exit where a former firefighter held the man at gunpoint. At that moment Springfield Police arrived on scene and detained the man.
The Springfield Police Department could not confirm the nature of statements said by the man to those inside of the Walmart, but they do confirm that the man had loaded weapons, and over one hundred rounds of ammunition.
Police also observed many shoppers hiding outside the Walmart and at nearby businesses.
Lieutenant Mike Lucas said it was clear the man's intent was to cause chaos, saying in part, "His intent was not to cause peace or comfort...He's lucky he's alive still, to be honest."
Police identified the man's vehicle and are investigating the possibility of more firearms inside the vehicle. https://www.ky3.com/content/news/Heavy-police-presence-at-Walmart-Neighborhood-Market-in-south-Springfield-528602951.html?fbclid=IwAR2jOSR7h85Vt4wl6eihhrVlh1IbkaPuWhTOdG-U4A-f2r3NOwsrYR_yN5o This guy wasn't actually shooting anyone, but he certainly "fit the profile" of a potential mass shooter: young, white man carrying a gun and ammunition. I wonder how outraged the pro-gun community would become if everyone started calling the police on people who were open carrying and subjectively looking like a perceived threat. Probably about as outraged as the black community, when they're driving or walking or grilling or breathing "suspiciously". Fits the profile of a good guy with a gun, too. There will still be millions of guns in the country if they’re banned, but then you’d have someone intent on criminal mayhem carrying, and the firefighter disarmed. I applaud the good guy with a gun. I hope America continues to protect his right to purchase and bear his firearm in public for his whole life, and that he passes that noble tradition down to children.
And I hope the system changes to where the good guy with a handgun doesn't have his walmart trip interrupted by a kid with a rifle. You can glorify the noble tradition all you want - that glory still plays in to why people engage this show of power.
Make the 'noble' thing noble. Let it earn its title back. This story is stark evidence that carrying a firearm is NOT noble in America at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://cdni-rt.secure2.footprint.net/files/2019.08/article/5d4994b7dda4c8e0178b45ab.jpg)
