RSS
Forget the consul system, the COTW is a tetrarchy this time around.
Mr. Rational’s succinct reworking of the concept of anarcho-tyranny:
The police state is very real, but goes after wrongthinkers; it ignores wrongdoers.
Arclight makes a pitch for self-discipline as a forgotten virtue that will be abruptly remembered when the long summer finally comes to an end:
We live in an extremely decadent society, in which self discipline as a virtue has been discarded. Instead it’s considered OK – even desirable – to exhibit emotional distress over not getting your way or not being perceived positively on politics, physical appearance, employment, etc. Highbrow publications are full of pieces in which the author moans over the difficulty of existing in a society in which their emotional comfort is not placed front and center, usually described as ’emotional labor.’ My social media feed is full of people who by any measure are near the top of society in terms of education and income but portray themselves as oppressed in some way due to being a woman, having more melanin, a supposed mental health issue, or whatever. It’s pathetic.
Overall we’re incredibly soft, which is why it’s important for those of us who see our current culture clearly not to be. Inevitably there will be some event (economic, natural disaster, etc) in which the most resolute people will come out the other side in command of politics, the economy, and the culture.
The bipartisan, oligarchical corporate elite no longer try to lift dirt people up. Instead, they give us champions from their own ranks to cheer for. If that champion is a black woman 1%er, then poor black women are supposed to vicariously derive some benefit from her triumphantly overcoming the emotional struggles of being mistaken for an employee rather than a customer of Macy’s or whatever. If the champion is a gay immigrant 1%er, then poor gay immigrants are supposed to vicariously derive some benefit from him recounting the suffering he experienced when how some bellhop awkwardly tried to make small talk with him on the Four Seasons elevator by asking him where he was from. Etc, etc.
Inverting the slogan about the second amendment protecting the first, dfordoom explains how snuffing out the first facilitates snuffing out the second (and presumably the third through the tenth, in service to of sacralizing the zeroth):
It’s interesting to compare the First and Second Amendments. The Second Amendment gives ordinary people the right to own guns. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use those guns against society. They will commit murders, robberies, etc. On balance you might decide that’s a price worth paying.
The First Amendment was intended to put an even more powerful weapon in the hands of ordinary people – free speech. Realistically it has to be accepted that some of them will use that weapon against society. On balance you might decide that’s a price worth paying.
Now imagine if a few giant corporations gained a monopoly not just on the manufacture but the distribution of guns, so that only people they approved of could get guns. They could overthrow the entire social and political order.
A few giant corporations have gained a monopoly on the distribution of free speech, so that only people they approve of can have free speech. They could overthrow the entire social and political order. And they have.
I’m not advocating banning guns or free speech (I kinda like free speech), but we need at least to understand that they are weapons.
Jay Fink on how the past is a foreign country:
I think if Americans from 50 years ago traveled to today they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won’t be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture….that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.
What will strike most as self-evident is indeed empirically confirmed:
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Obesity is one of the underlying reasons for intersexual tensions.
It’s not an accident that Trump is caricatured with a beer gut, such relies upon long standing stereotypes that can be demonized with CultureInc. approval.
This is something that men have to go it alone on, as any attack on a woman’s appearance by a (straight) male is increasingly viewed as hate speech.
Just as men have to curb their sexual thirst, they have to do the same to their soda/beer tastes.
Assorted topic:
The other aspect of the gender chasm is social media, and so-called “online harassment” the claims of which are almost always women.
In the early days of Facebook, social media was a phenomenon first among college students, and prior forms which were mostly bloggers and bulletin boards. Now market penetration is complete, except for a few elderly that never got online in the first place.
Feminists have complained that the problem is in “system architecture” where the absence of female/NAM developers leads to no anti-harassment tools being developed. But other than “toxicity” they don’t have a good explanation for why men don’t react the same way to harassment.
We now have a system where any white “Becky” can face a BlackTwitter attack, and this is openly encouraged by the commanding heights of culture. I’d think it goes without saying that this is moving votes into the Dem column.
Regardless of whether the government is re-elected, the censorship will get worse. So it behooves our people to move to anti-fragile older technologies like blogs, bulletin boards, RSS feeds, Telegram, and even the legendary printed newsletter paid for by postal money order.
blogs (totally customizable, very little limit) -> twitter (totally centrally organized)
BBS and forums (more freedom and customization)-> Reddit (totally centrally organized, awful UI)
RSS/atom feeds (user-centric) -> social media feeds (controlled by proprietary algorithms)
IRC/XMPP/ICQ (fast, secure and simple) -> Discord (extremely bloated, proprietary and leaks info to gov), thankfully almost everyone has switched to telegram
We obviously need some presence on the dominant platforms in order to spread our ideas but their is no reason not to use the older, stable, free and faster technologies.
the chart for body weight mostly jives with my personal observations since the 70s. back then, there pretty much were no fat people.
in the early 80s, there would be a fat person in Mcdonald’s once in a while, and it was normal to stare, because it was disgusting and not common. kids and even adults would absolutely, positively made fun of you for being fat. there was even a rap group, The Fat Boys, where the whole gimmick was, we’re fat, make fun of us.
by the 90s, there were a lot more fat people and it wasn’t rare to see them anymore. but you could and did still make fun of them, and fat kids in schools nationwide took a hellacious taunting. as they should. but it seemed like around this time, adults started to shame fat people less.
after 2000 it was normal for half the people at the mall to be fat slobs, a huge downgrade in appearance and attire among the general population. by this point, like tattoos, you kinda just waded thru the human detritus, since it was everywhere, and there was nothing you could do.
i’m not sure when it became not ok to taunt and harass fat people for being disgusting slobs who bring the entire society down, but sometime in the 00s or early 10s. which is a mistake. it’s a good thing to ostracize theses 300 pound slobs. that leftists have methodically disabled all societal shaming systems is what leads to a general decline. on purpose of course.
now they force fat slobs onto the cover of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit magazine, and issue social fatwas against ‘body shaming’, in the final push to normal obesity. perhaps counter intuitively, they’ve had less success at psychologically normalizing giant fatasses than they have at normalizing homos. the general population isn’t buying that look. they accept that half the population is fat but they appear as if they will never accept fatness as attractive. whereas the leftists have gotten the average person to consider reflexively defending open homo debauchery.
Fat kids do not deserve a hellacious taunting. Doing this is tantamount to child abuse. They should be educated about fitness and health as should fat adults. Kids who are endlessly taunted or bullied at school very often become dangerous to society as adults. Now I'm going to give you some hellacious taunting about your punctuation, looking at it burns my eyes.Replies: @prime noticer
Sure, it’s fun to play pretend. It’s fun to sit around watching X-Files and to make believe that there’s all sorts of esoteric government coverups going on. It’s fun to be a 9/11 Doucher and to imagine that you caught the government breaking the laws of physics. It’s fun to snicker and to drop little “Epstein didn’t kill himself” memes wherever you go even though no one had a better reason to kill Jeffrey Epstein than Jeffrey Epstein. And it’s fun to congratulate yourself that your muy dangeroso thoughts are worthy of totalitarian repression.
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you’re basically admitting that you’re getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn’t a good look.
Mostly our problem is that political discussions do not take place in public spaces but in spaces controlled by a handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried. So people get the feeling that there are certain opinions that it's very unwise to express (such as casting doubt on climate change or on the awesomeness of homosexuality). It's not a police state but it is an atmosphere of subtle intimidation.
And Britain seems to be moving in the direction of outright totalitarianism, mostly soft totalitarianism but with some elements of hard totalitarianism.
You can still express opinions openly at places like UR, but this is a very marginal site and so full of crazies that it has little credibility.Replies: @iffen, @utu
But the left, having gained the upper hand culturally, is trying to block freedom of speech to permanently consolidate its gains. I think that's worth opposing, no.
As for the rest of it: no aliens, 19 Saudi hijackers did 9/11, Epstein didn't kill himself. The whole thing looks too suspicious--the hyoid bone's broken, they took him off suicide watch, the cameras don't work...
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you're basically admitting that you're getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn't a good look.Replies: @Pericles, @dfordoom, @SFG, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Achmed E. Newman
Go wear a MAGA hat in NYC or Charlottesville and you’ll get a feel for how it is.
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you're basically admitting that you're getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn't a good look.Replies: @Pericles, @dfordoom, @SFG, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Achmed E. Newman
Kind of true. We certainly don’t live in anything approaching full-on hard totalitarianism as practised by Hitler and Stalin. We are moving steadily towards a low-grade soft totalitarianism though, in which the penalties for dissent are much milder but just serious enough to intimidate people.
Mostly our problem is that political discussions do not take place in public spaces but in spaces controlled by a handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried. So people get the feeling that there are certain opinions that it’s very unwise to express (such as casting doubt on climate change or on the awesomeness of homosexuality). It’s not a police state but it is an atmosphere of subtle intimidation.
And Britain seems to be moving in the direction of outright totalitarianism, mostly soft totalitarianism but with some elements of hard totalitarianism.
You can still express opinions openly at places like UR, but this is a very marginal site and so full of crazies that it has little credibility.
handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried.The MSM operates on two principles: making money and legitimizing the rule of the elites.Professional journalism had a short life, about a hundred years or so. The only way forward will be advocacy journalism by wealthy individuals or political groups.
“Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”
“During my stay in the United States, I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees in a country for the pursuit and prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime. In Europe, a criminal is an unhappy man who is struggling for his life against the agents of power, whilst the people are merely a spectator of the conflict: in America, he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.”
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.”
“I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”
“Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry interests, in one word, so anti-poetic, as the life of a man in the United States.”
I saw a 1957 re-make of The Admirable Crichton in which and English Lord, his daughters, and a couple social hangers-on are shipwrecked along with his butler and a maid. Needless to say, the only one with any skills for survival turns out to be the butler, and in a rather short time he becomes the governour of the group, at least until they are rescued, at which point he dutifully resumes his role as butler. Actually a cute story with a depressing ending, bur very much illustrative of what will happen to our criminal elite if we ever really see TSHTF.
Yes it sucks but there’s no other way.
Mostly our problem is that political discussions do not take place in public spaces but in spaces controlled by a handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried. So people get the feeling that there are certain opinions that it's very unwise to express (such as casting doubt on climate change or on the awesomeness of homosexuality). It's not a police state but it is an atmosphere of subtle intimidation.
And Britain seems to be moving in the direction of outright totalitarianism, mostly soft totalitarianism but with some elements of hard totalitarianism.
You can still express opinions openly at places like UR, but this is a very marginal site and so full of crazies that it has little credibility.Replies: @iffen, @utu
I give you and Dissident a gold star, gold border shout-out for your comments on the Free Speech post.
handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried.
The MSM operates on two principles: making money and legitimizing the rule of the elites.
Professional journalism had a short life, about a hundred years or so. The only way forward will be advocacy journalism by wealthy individuals or political groups.
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you're basically admitting that you're getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn't a good look.Replies: @Pericles, @dfordoom, @SFG, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Achmed E. Newman
You’re certainly right this isn’t the USSR (or Nazi Germany).
But the left, having gained the upper hand culturally, is trying to block freedom of speech to permanently consolidate its gains. I think that’s worth opposing, no.
As for the rest of it: no aliens, 19 Saudi hijackers did 9/11, Epstein didn’t kill himself. The whole thing looks too suspicious–the hyoid bone’s broken, they took him off suicide watch, the cameras don’t work…
Mostly our problem is that political discussions do not take place in public spaces but in spaces controlled by a handful of mega-corporations which ensure that dissenting opinions are for the most part buried. So people get the feeling that there are certain opinions that it's very unwise to express (such as casting doubt on climate change or on the awesomeness of homosexuality). It's not a police state but it is an atmosphere of subtle intimidation.
And Britain seems to be moving in the direction of outright totalitarianism, mostly soft totalitarianism but with some elements of hard totalitarianism.
You can still express opinions openly at places like UR, but this is a very marginal site and so full of crazies that it has little credibility.Replies: @iffen, @utu
The “soft totalitarianism” system was the destiny of American democracy. The tyranny of public opinion can be worse than that of authoritarian systems. Alexis de Tocqueville saw it in 1830s.
“Tyranny in democratic republics does not proceed in the same way, however. It ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”
“During my stay in the United States, I witnessed the spontaneous formation of committees in a country for the pursuit and prosecution of a man who had committed a great crime. In Europe, a criminal is an unhappy man who is struggling for his life against the agents of power, whilst the people are merely a spectator of the conflict: in America, he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.”
“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.”
“I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”
“Nothing conceivable is so petty, so insipid, so crowded with paltry interests, in one word, so anti-poetic, as the life of a man in the United States.”
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you're basically admitting that you're getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn't a good look.Replies: @Pericles, @dfordoom, @SFG, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Achmed E. Newman
Official government documents have shown 1) The Saudi intelligence officials helped fund the hijackers, and 2) that the Israeli Mossad was in position to document the tower attacks (thus implying at an absolute minimum that Israel had foreknowledge).
It’s just that our media and politicians don’t care to do anything about these facts.
There are two kinds of 9/11 Douchers: people who create conspiracy theories that distract from the above, and people who claim the government isn’t hiding something from us.
Whatever makes your mundane life more interesting. But you have no conception of what it means to live underneath a real police state, and you know it.
Furthermore, you may want to reconsider these little exercises in vanity enhancement, because you're basically admitting that you're getting your asses whooped by PC hall monitors, which isn't a good look.Replies: @Pericles, @dfordoom, @SFG, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @Achmed E. Newman
Per your 1st paragraph, I.D., I don’t think you get what people mean by the “Police State”. Are you confusing this term with the “Deep State”, as both the conspiracy theories and conspiracy realities are related to the Deep State?
I read some of the comments on that previous thread (thank you Arclight for laying out the case very well). I saw one comment of yours there too, I.D. Question for you: Have you not been to an airport in the last 18 years, to get on a flight and all? How could one NOT see the TSA as Police State apparatus. It’s getting even more ridiculous now, not particularly because the procedures have changed over the last 5 years, but because people are completely inured to being searched and having their belongings ransacked. It’s downright sickening to see.
Mr. Fink’s comment on America being a foreign country from 1970 is correct on the obesity, but it’s Americans’ willingness to give up on defending rights fought for is the part that’s foreign to anyone who’s been around here that long. OK, I should say anyone who has a decent memory too.
Pfft.
Airport screening has zilch to do with a police state.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Now, concerning the TSA, I think it's important to keep a broader perspective here. Everything that the TSA now does, as intrusive as you find it to be, was pretty much the norm in most other countries in the world even long before 9/11.
And I am old enough to remember flying in a different era. I took many cross-country flights as a kid in the '80s to spend summers with my grandparents. I remember when you could whisk into the airport 15 minutes before your scheduled departure, trot unobstructed down the concourse, and hug your loved ones goodbye at the boarding ramp. At some point the authorities decided that this was all too much of a security liability, and in this day and age it probably is.
It's the same situation with gas stations. Gas pumps used to relatively simple affairs that would simply record your pumped volume and display a price, with the expectation that people would be honest enough to head into the station and pay. But too many people were gassing up and dashing off, so gas companies changed the arrangement. Now you either have to prepay inside the store or insert your credit card into the pump before it will dispense any gas in the first place, but I don't often hear anybody complaining about the lost "freedoms" of the gasoline transaction.
When you look around you today, there are some things that are tightly controlled and many others that are not. It's all a question of where society decides to apply its efforts, and the calculus keeps changing with the passage of time. Right now in America you may feel very unfree if you're a lower middle class white man with conservative views; you feel great if you're a Mexican immigrant with a yob at the chicken plant. The rules are no longer made in our favor, but this only underscores the point that these so-called rights are at best political privileges, incentives, or weapons.Replies: @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman
How could one NOT see the TSA as Police State apparatus.
Pfft.
Airport screening has zilch to do with a police state.
The Jew component of the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is actively hostile to the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States of America.
The hostile Jew component of the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire controls a disproportionate amount of the corporate mass media power in the USA.
Comcast/NBC and Viacom/CBS and Disney/ABC and the New York Times and CNN and many other media outlets are controlled by the hostile Jew element of the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire.
Jews are disproportionately involved in the advertising racket and this is part of the corporate propaganda apparatus that is clearly anti-White and anti-Christian.
The evil and immoral politician whores in the Republican Party — including FATSO Trump and fat-faced Teddy Cruz and Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton and Dan Crenshaw and many others — are completely and totally controlled by Jew donors such as Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Les Wexner and Bernie Marcus and others.
The Republican Party must be destroyed because there is no saving it and the Republican Party rancidity is dragging down the European Christian ancestral core of the USA. The Republican Party is evil and immoral and it is controlled by Jew donors who are actively hostile to the interests of the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.
It should be obvious that the corporate mass media — controlled by hostile Jews — is protecting the fake opposition of the Republican Party. The purpose of the Republican Party is to act as a pacifying vote sink for dingbat Whites to give those moron Whites the false idea that there is some kind of choice in the two-party tyranny destroying the USA.
The Republican Party must be destroyed if the USA is to survive.
I hereby challenge treasonous Republican Party politician whores Trump, Teddy Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham to a debate on mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration, free speech, tax policy, monetary policy, foreign policy, multiculturalism and American national identity. I would rhetorically crush those disgusting Republican Party rancid treasonite politician whores in a debate and it would bring joy to tens of millions of White people to watch it.
Destroy The Rancid Republican Party Now!
Destroy The Corporate Mass Media Propaganda Outlets Now!
Vote For WHITE CORE AMERICA!
Pfft.
Airport screening has zilch to do with a police state.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
LOL!
I don’t do that often, Iffen, but that was one of those Ron Unz LOL’s out of distain (not the way they should be used IMO), but what the hell, man?
“Airport Screening”. Yeah, I see you are all down with “airport screening”, is that right?
(I had another general post on this that got burned up when I had to leave this browser for a bit. I’ll get back to this.)
.
http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/e/e4/A2_terrorists.jpg/600px-A2_terrorists.jpg
.
That could be made in a real airport today with the TSA.
Ok. I exaggerate. A little....
_______
PEACE 😇
As for LOL: I do not use it in what you describe in the Unz way. I would hate to think that those I have LOL'd in the past thought I was showing disdain for their comment. Surely I'm not the only one here who uses it appreciatively?
Perhaps Ron should give us two different LOLs/ Maybe LOL (disdain) and LOL (amusement)?Replies: @A123, @Achmed E. Newman
Maybe you should gain weight:
https://startingstrength.com/article/maybe-you-should-gain-weight
I was here fifty years ago. The overly muscular men now are partly due to changes in female mate choice. Formerly women would look for a male who had qualities like being honest, dependable and hardworking because this type of male could hold down a job and support a wife and children. The combination of women being encouraged to enter the workforce and an expanded welfare state caused a decline in demand for this type of male and increased the value of male physical appearance. There has been a role reversal where instead of women spending a lot of their time on grooming and appearance men do.
I have noticed a really big decrease over the years in the number of skinny white male nerd types that were common in my high school fifty years ago and an increase in tattooed guys who look like they bulked up pumping iron in prison. This is bad for society since it is mainly those skinny nerd types who are interested in the science and technology which enables our high standard of living.
When I go to a shopping mall now and see lots of obese poor white people, young people covered with tattoos and piercings and lots of nonwhites I just don’t see how we are going to maintain civilization in the future with that motley crew. I’m glad I’m old and won’t be here then.
(even the old man also has a good amount of solid, wiry muscle on him and no extra weight):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPTocLnXsAYCZz2.pngAnd it all starts to make sense. The lifting of weights is basically modern man having to make up for an unnatural lifestyle full of unnatural foods and unnatural environments...regression to the mean.I'd like to think cowboys and outdoors types in the US looked hardy and resilient like the two Arab specimens at around the same time frame, no?Peace.Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @anon
You must miss the good old days when anyone could walk onto a plane with a .357 and take a free ride to Cuba. It got to the point where Castro was so tired of hijackers landing there that he demanded America do something about their skyjacking problem.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/skyjacking/
As for me, I’m a railroad man – air travel is laughably undignified compared to the rails. Even a hobo has more freedom and dignity than some guy stuck in a can at 30,000 feet. Best of all is to not travel at all, except by one’s own feet. Americans wouldn’t be so slovenly if we had more walking paths connecting the cities to the countryside. It’s about time that humans started living more like humans again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jn-ZS7g8xs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuuEV3sutZs
Just for you, John: "Excuse me, Captain, this may sound silly, but can you fly?" "Nope, never had a lesson."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzbCBfi5-BwReplies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” – variously ascribed to H.L. Mencken and A.J. Liebling.
If I had one silver bullet, I would tear up Bill Clinton’s allowing big media to merge until it’s all controlled by about six major corporations. Like pro wrestling, the news today is not ‘fake,’ it’s ‘scripted.’
I would break up big media, and demand that any news source not be owned by a business with other interests. Let there be hundreds of locally controlled newspapers, a variety of of internet-based news corporations, etc., let them be concerned only with journalism. Will that solve all of our problems? Of course not. But at least we would have a chance.
Paying for travel – LOL.
Indeed I do, John. Indeed I do.
Just for you, John: “Excuse me, Captain, this may sound silly, but can you fly?” “Nope, never had a lesson.”
Elizabeth Warren is the #1 enemy of Self Discipline: (1)
To bad she will not get the nomination. It would be entertaining watching Trump devastate Lie-awatha and her 1/1,024 true agenda.
⏫ TRUMP 2020 ⏫
______________
(1) https://pjmedia.com/trending/democrats-want-to-create-the-irresponsible-society/
I have noticed a really big decrease over the years in the number of skinny white male nerd types that were common in my high school fifty years ago and an increase in tattooed guys who look like they bulked up pumping iron in prison. This is bad for society since it is mainly those skinny nerd types who are interested in the science and technology which enables our high standard of living.
When I go to a shopping mall now and see lots of obese poor white people, young people covered with tattoos and piercings and lots of nonwhites I just don't see how we are going to maintain civilization in the future with that motley crew. I'm glad I'm old and won't be here then.Replies: @Talha, @Jay Fink
OK – but is this just a reversion to the mean – and the abundance of skinny nerdy types was actually the pendulum swinging in one unhealthy direction?
For example, many of the Arabs I’ve come across from the Gulf are really skinny or pudgy or soft. Makes you wonder; how the hell did people like this kick the crap out of imperial armies twice their size?!
And then one comes across an old photograph showing what these Bedouin types actually looked like under their robes at the turn of the century; hardy, lean muscle – not too much, not too little
(even the old man also has a good amount of solid, wiry muscle on him and no extra weight):
And it all starts to make sense. The lifting of weights is basically modern man having to make up for an unnatural lifestyle full of unnatural foods and unnatural environments…regression to the mean.
I’d like to think cowboys and outdoors types in the US looked hardy and resilient like the two Arab specimens at around the same time frame, no?
Peace.
Remember the security / metal detector scene from Airplane II?
.
.
That could be made in a real airport today with the TSA.
Ok. I exaggerate. A little….
_______
PEACE 😇
“Inverting the slogan about the second amendment protecting the first, dfordoom explains how snuffing out the first facilitates snuffing out the second (and presumably the third through the tenth, in service to of sacralizing the zeroth):”
You do realize he’s an Australian (dfordoom) with Aussie sensibilities, don’t you?
https://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com/
He’s already surrendered his semi-auto rifles. The same with the UK. The same with New Zealand.
Managed destruction of gun rights is the screaming conclusion that one gets from other Anglophone countries and certainly NOT to be emulated by freedom-loving Americans.
“They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.”
Look a this American railroad film and consider what it radiates in terms of Old America:
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about - they radiate the vivacity and energy our country had.
This one, a safety training movie from the 1950s Pennsylvania Railroad, is one of the most unique and incredible things I've ever seen in Americana. It is my gift to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eyNsvvn6EReplies: @Charles Pewitt
I think we need to remember that ID is too young to remember what freedom was like in the USA of old.
As for LOL: I do not use it in what you describe in the Unz way. I would hate to think that those I have LOL’d in the past thought I was showing disdain for their comment. Surely I’m not the only one here who uses it appreciatively?
Perhaps Ron should give us two different LOLs/ Maybe LOL (disdain) and LOL (amusement)?
We need a way to laugh at posters who are incompetent, like AS. The troll button is the wrong choice. He is not maliciously trolling. AS is doing the best he can with his Persian less than 80 IQ. All you can do is LOL at his weird efforts, bizarre tangents, and amusing inconsistencies.
PEACE 😇Replies: @res
On the LOL thing, I didn't mean that it's an unz thing, but just a Ron Unz thing, along with just some of the commenters (not the ones on iSteve as far as I can recall). I use it to mean "that was funny!"almost all the time, but Iffen's one here just got me disgusted on the lack of understanding of freedom in this sense. However, yes, it's sometimes hard to tell, depending on whether you are really arguing or not, whether some of the posters are laughing at you joke or trying to tell you that your post is laughably stupid or something.
As for LOL: I do not use it in what you describe in the Unz way. I would hate to think that those I have LOL'd in the past thought I was showing disdain for their comment. Surely I'm not the only one here who uses it appreciatively?
Perhaps Ron should give us two different LOLs/ Maybe LOL (disdain) and LOL (amusement)?Replies: @A123, @Achmed E. Newman
I concur. LOL (laughing at) and LOL (laughing with) really need separate flags.
We need a way to laugh at posters who are incompetent, like AS. The troll button is the wrong choice. He is not maliciously trolling. AS is doing the best he can with his Persian less than 80 IQ. All you can do is LOL at his weird efforts, bizarre tangents, and amusing inconsistencies.
PEACE 😇
Just for you, John: "Excuse me, Captain, this may sound silly, but can you fly?" "Nope, never had a lesson."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzbCBfi5-BwReplies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
Thanks. I appreciated that.
(even the old man also has a good amount of solid, wiry muscle on him and no extra weight):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPTocLnXsAYCZz2.pngAnd it all starts to make sense. The lifting of weights is basically modern man having to make up for an unnatural lifestyle full of unnatural foods and unnatural environments...regression to the mean.I'd like to think cowboys and outdoors types in the US looked hardy and resilient like the two Arab specimens at around the same time frame, no?Peace.Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @anon
Maybe
Most American men of the pre-industrial period would have looked like this gentleman, a Civil War veteran. He is shirtless because the picture was taken to display his war wounds:
He’s skinny, and clearly used to light rations, but he’s healthy. He has the fiery, proud eyes that can often be found in the vital American men of days gone by.
These were VERY rugged men, these farmer citizen-soldiers from both North and South. That soldier could march 20-40 miles a day on pretty spartan food sources.
On the other hand, men like Jimmie Foxx also existed from the world of American post-industrial sports. Jimmie Foxx was a major league baseball star at a time when most baseball players were pretty thin. Foxx honed his muscles doing very hard farm work in rural Maryland.
It’s important to note that Jimmie Foxx was much bigger than the average professional athlete of the 1930s. That is definitely not the case now!
Honus Wagner, the Pittsburgh Pirates hero of the early 1900s, was the first baseball player to seriously lift weights. He was not, however, an especially large man:
Moving along, here is the great 1920s boxing star Jack Dempsey:
And here is his archrival, Gene Tunney, who is probably pushing 40 in this photo:
Here, from the 1950s, is Rocky Marciano, who had a legendary work ethic and the best conditioning ever recorded to that point in heavyweight boxing:
I should also note that steroid use (in conjunction with weight-lifting) did not begin in American football until after the 1970s. Players before then were usually no bigger than 250 or so pounds. Nowadays, it’s not uncommon for linemen to be well over 350 pounds.
Peace.Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
You do realize he's an Australian (dfordoom) with Aussie sensibilities, don't you?
https://anotherpoliticallyincorrectblog.blogspot.com/
He's already surrendered his semi-auto rifles. The same with the UK. The same with New Zealand.
Managed destruction of gun rights is the screaming conclusion that one gets from other Anglophone countries and certainly NOT to be emulated by freedom-loving Americans.
"They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women."
Look a this American railroad film and consider what it radiates in terms of Old America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoBSlKa4BQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rRgx3hRwK4Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
It’s nice to meet someone with an appreciation for old American railroad videos.
I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about – they radiate the vivacity and energy our country had.
This one, a safety training movie from the 1950s Pennsylvania Railroad, is one of the most unique and incredible things I’ve ever seen in Americana. It is my gift to you:
I guess it depends on whether the man is from a city or from a rural area – could be either when you talk about that era – now it’s more and mroe weighted towards the city-dweller.
Don’t doubt it.
Makes total sense.
Sure – now there’s millions upon millions of dollars pumped into this industry, the stakes are very high.
Peace.
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about - they radiate the vivacity and energy our country had.
This one, a safety training movie from the 1950s Pennsylvania Railroad, is one of the most unique and incredible things I've ever seen in Americana. It is my gift to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eyNsvvn6EReplies: @Charles Pewitt
David Lynch must have seen the part starting at 23 minutes in, because that cat was CRAZY man and an image of him was in every David Lynch movie or TV show!
Point of order. The US Bill of Rights does not grant anything. Read the document.
It recognizes pre-existing rights. Even a materialist Liberteeny can point to “natural law”. The rest of us can say “God given” without squirming. God-given rights are very different from state-granted privileges. Although liberals and socialists and leftists generally can’t see the distinction, or perhaps they do not want to, because government is their “god”.
This issue is not trivial. It is a deep philosophical point that is worth pondering. One can follow it all the way back to Aristotle.
Natural law is one of those terms like "community standards" that means whatever you want it to mean.
If natural law is the same as God-given rights then how come no set of religious laws has ever included freedom of speech?
These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.Replies: @iffen, @Intelligent Dasein
In fact, the Constitution of the united states of America is a charter of negative rights. The Constitution is supposed to limit what government may do...to wit: "Congress shall pass NO LAW..."
Even that "great constitutional scholar" o'bama (lol) decried the fact that the Constitution was a charter of negative rights which constrained his actions.
“by the 90s, there were a lot more fat people and it wasn’t rare to see them anymore. but you could and did still make fun of them, and fat kids in schools nationwide took a hellacious taunting. as they should. but it seemed like around this time, adults started to shame fat people less.”
Fat kids do not deserve a hellacious taunting. Doing this is tantamount to child abuse. They should be educated about fitness and health as should fat adults. Kids who are endlessly taunted or bullied at school very often become dangerous to society as adults. Now I’m going to give you some hellacious taunting about your punctuation, looking at it burns my eyes.
totally wrong. Gunnery Sergeant Hartman had the correct idea. and so did the rest of society before the Cultural Marxists showed up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur3121e_Cgg
now here's what we get today thanks to the Fat Enabler idiots.
https://imgur.com/a/9pOLOhY
(even the old man also has a good amount of solid, wiry muscle on him and no extra weight):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPTocLnXsAYCZz2.pngAnd it all starts to make sense. The lifting of weights is basically modern man having to make up for an unnatural lifestyle full of unnatural foods and unnatural environments...regression to the mean.I'd like to think cowboys and outdoors types in the US looked hardy and resilient like the two Arab specimens at around the same time frame, no?Peace.Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan, @anon
It’s my observation that the overly bulky types of men with tattoos who spend all their time at the gym are mostly homosexual types trying to appeal to each other. There are very few normal types of women who would find them attractive.
Wonder if there have been polls done on this? 🤔
Peace.Replies: @Mark G.
https://www.shorpy.com/files/images/8b15572u.jpg
That seems to be intuitive, though I’m sure some women dig hulking, muscle-bound men.
Wonder if there have been polls done on this? 🤔
Peace.
As for LOL: I do not use it in what you describe in the Unz way. I would hate to think that those I have LOL'd in the past thought I was showing disdain for their comment. Surely I'm not the only one here who uses it appreciatively?
Perhaps Ron should give us two different LOLs/ Maybe LOL (disdain) and LOL (amusement)?Replies: @A123, @Achmed E. Newman
Yes, I agree with that first sentence, OPA. It’s probably hard for most people under 40 to imagine what the free country of America was like.
On the LOL thing, I didn’t mean that it’s an unz thing, but just a Ron Unz thing, along with just some of the commenters (not the ones on iSteve as far as I can recall). I use it to mean “that was funny!”almost all the time, but Iffen’s one here just got me disgusted on the lack of understanding of freedom in this sense. However, yes, it’s sometimes hard to tell, depending on whether you are really arguing or not, whether some of the posters are laughing at you joke or trying to tell you that your post is laughably stupid or something.
I have noticed a really big decrease over the years in the number of skinny white male nerd types that were common in my high school fifty years ago and an increase in tattooed guys who look like they bulked up pumping iron in prison. This is bad for society since it is mainly those skinny nerd types who are interested in the science and technology which enables our high standard of living.
When I go to a shopping mall now and see lots of obese poor white people, young people covered with tattoos and piercings and lots of nonwhites I just don't see how we are going to maintain civilization in the future with that motley crew. I'm glad I'm old and won't be here then.Replies: @Talha, @Jay Fink
I saw a clip of Johnny Cash performing in a prison in 1969. The prisoners back then actually looked more wholesome and harmless (even if they obviously weren’t) than most young non-criminal men do today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-dm3hsmHGghttps://takecountryback.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/paycheck-the-album-that-never-was/Replies: @Charles Pewitt
“It recognizes pre-existing rights. Even a materialist Liberteeny can point to “natural law”. The rest of us can say “God given” without squirming. God-given rights are very different from state-granted privileges. Although liberals and socialists and leftists generally can’t see the distinction, or perhaps they do not want to, because government is their “god”.”
The distinction is to empowerment. In otherwords, the force to protect from said intrusion on that respect they are in granted rights from this or that act of government. As members of the US the government is in actuality the people — the grants are in practice via the law and the courts, acting supposedly on the people’s behalf.
You can shout “natural law” to your heart’s content, unless you can define it and have a means of protecting it — the philosophy despite its intrinsic value doesn’t count for much in practice. And in community by consent in which there can be no absolutes we grant to one another certain rights.
I don’t have any over abiding love for government, but it is a mechanism we sadly must have. Because protecting one’s natural rights requires protection from other individuals as well.
Just a few quick thoughts re America’s First Amendment.
I’ve mentioned this squib before:
Dictatorships squelch free speech because they fear too many people will care. Our Western liberal democracies allow free speech because they know no one gives a damn.
Free speech–dissent–is suppressed in the West through criminal and civil misconduct, bribery as one example, and by legal means, such as workplace or neighborhood shunning, various other tools of intimidation. Suppression of free speech is never presented as the real reason for harassing the living daylights out of someone. (There’s at least one writer whose name I’ve forgotten who claims the thicket of laws and regulations we live under is so dense it’s impossible to go through the day without being in violation of law or out of compliance with rules.)
Our mass media daily generate oceans of writing, still and moving pictures, and oral communication undreamed of by an American frontiersman reading a weekly broadside in 1820. My impression is that mass media offer something like an “opiate of the masses”, a psychological tonic or conditioner, or therapeutic rhetoric. I’m thinking of showmen-journalists such as Van Gordon Sauter and Roger Ailes here.
Well, the above submitted on a FWIW basis.
https://www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-itReplies: @JackOH
It recognizes pre-existing rights. Even a materialist Liberteeny can point to "natural law". The rest of us can say "God given" without squirming. God-given rights are very different from state-granted privileges. Although liberals and socialists and leftists generally can't see the distinction, or perhaps they do not want to, because government is their "god".
This issue is not trivial. It is a deep philosophical point that is worth pondering. One can follow it all the way back to Aristotle.Replies: @dfordoom, @anarchyst
If there are natural laws how come everyone doesn’t have the same laws? If there are God-given rights how come He gave different rights to different groups of believers?
Natural law is one of those terms like “community standards” that means whatever you want it to mean.
If natural law is the same as God-given rights then how come no set of religious laws has ever included freedom of speech?
These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.
And it is the duty of their descendants to make those rights a reality.Replies: @dfordoom
Natural law is one of those terms like "community standards" that means whatever you want it to mean.
If natural law is the same as God-given rights then how come no set of religious laws has ever included freedom of speech?
These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.Replies: @iffen, @Intelligent Dasein
These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.
And it is the duty of their descendants to make those rights a reality.
And given that many of those rights were essentially anti-Christian it's hard to argue for them as God-given. There's not much evidence that the Christian God believes in freedom of speech. Or freedom of religion.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism. They either work or they don't. If they work they're worth defending.
The universe doesn't care about our rights.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @iffen, @Talha
Peace.Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
Indeed, but Americans, nationwide, were majority rural, actually, until the early to mid 20th century.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/urban_and_rural_areas.htmlDetailed numbers from 1790-2010 for the US and the individual states are available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics
This graphic does a good job of capturing the trend until 1990. And also shows the interesting fact that the rural population has changed little since 1910 or so. From
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245440361_Regional_and_Global_Patterns_of_Population_Land_Use_and_Land_Cover_Change_An_Overview_of_Stressors_and_Impacts
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/S_Jarnagin/publication/245440361/figure/fig1/AS:669068503810050@1536529770081/US-population-in-urban-and-rural-areas-1790-1990-The-graph-uses-the-current-urban.png
P.S. Thanks for the photos vividly illustrating your points in comment 30.
Johnny recorded two famous prison concerts in the late ’60s.
The first, in 1968, was at Folsom. The second, in ’69, was at San Quentin.
That was not the first time he had performed at the latter. He had played San Quentin in the late 1950s – one of the prisoners in the audience was a young Merle Haggard, who was deeply inspired by the experience.
I don’t think the Folsom concert was video taped, but the one at San Quentin was – and I know exactly what you mean about the wholesome-looking prisoners.
Here’s video from another country music prison concert – Johnny Paycheck’s show at the Chillicothe, Ohio state prison. The interesting part is that Johnny was an inmate at the time. He and Merle Haggard worked together to record an album out of the show. It would have been one of the greatest country music albums ever. Unfortunately, the album never saw the light of day because a (((recording studio))) sued the producers. And to add to the tragedy, the master tapes burned in a house fire. Thankfully, a few videos exist….
Hard to believe how many white guys were in prison there! There were a few black guys in the audience, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-dm3hsmHGg
https://takecountryback.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/paycheck-the-album-that-never-was/
My message to the ruling class of the American Empire:
Take the government's debt and all the other debt and shove it, young White Core Americans ain't being government mules for your rotten central banker shysterism no more.
Lytle Surname:Read more: https://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Lytle#ixzz6CLsZlLhLReplies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
It recognizes pre-existing rights. Even a materialist Liberteeny can point to "natural law". The rest of us can say "God given" without squirming. God-given rights are very different from state-granted privileges. Although liberals and socialists and leftists generally can't see the distinction, or perhaps they do not want to, because government is their "god".
This issue is not trivial. It is a deep philosophical point that is worth pondering. One can follow it all the way back to Aristotle.Replies: @dfordoom, @anarchyst
Agree.
In fact, the Constitution of the united states of America is a charter of negative rights. The Constitution is supposed to limit what government may do…to wit: “Congress shall pass NO LAW…”
Even that “great constitutional scholar” o’bama (lol) decried the fact that the Constitution was a charter of negative rights which constrained his actions.
I've mentioned this squib before:
Dictatorships squelch free speech because they fear too many people will care. Our Western liberal democracies allow free speech because they know no one gives a damn.
Free speech--dissent--is suppressed in the West through criminal and civil misconduct, bribery as one example, and by legal means, such as workplace or neighborhood shunning, various other tools of intimidation. Suppression of free speech is never presented as the real reason for harassing the living daylights out of someone. (There's at least one writer whose name I've forgotten who claims the thicket of laws and regulations we live under is so dense it's impossible to go through the day without being in violation of law or out of compliance with rules.)
Our mass media daily generate oceans of writing, still and moving pictures, and oral communication undreamed of by an American frontiersman reading a weekly broadside in 1820. My impression is that mass media offer something like an "opiate of the masses", a psychological tonic or conditioner, or therapeutic rhetoric. I'm thinking of showmen-journalists such as Van Gordon Sauter and Roger Ailes here.
Well, the above submitted on a FWIW basis.Replies: @anon, @The Wild Geese Howard
There’s at least one writer whose name I’ve forgotten who claims the thicket of laws and regulations we live under is so dense it’s impossible to go through the day without being in violation of law or out of compliance with rules.)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day
A short version
https://www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it
The other aspect of the gender chasm is social media, and so-called "online harassment" the claims of which are almost always women.
In the early days of Facebook, social media was a phenomenon first among college students, and prior forms which were mostly bloggers and bulletin boards. Now market penetration is complete, except for a few elderly that never got online in the first place.
Feminists have complained that the problem is in "system architecture" where the absence of female/NAM developers leads to no anti-harassment tools being developed. But other than "toxicity" they don't have a good explanation for why men don't react the same way to harassment.
We now have a system where any white "Becky" can face a BlackTwitter attack, and this is openly encouraged by the commanding heights of culture. I'd think it goes without saying that this is moving votes into the Dem column.
Regardless of whether the government is re-elected, the censorship will get worse. So it behooves our people to move to anti-fragile older technologies like blogs, bulletin boards, RSS feeds, Telegram, and even the legendary printed newsletter paid for by postal money order.Replies: @ltews
so much older software work much better then new ones.
blogs (totally customizable, very little limit) -> twitter (totally centrally organized)
BBS and forums (more freedom and customization)-> Reddit (totally centrally organized, awful UI)
RSS/atom feeds (user-centric) -> social media feeds (controlled by proprietary algorithms)
IRC/XMPP/ICQ (fast, secure and simple) -> Discord (extremely bloated, proprietary and leaks info to gov), thankfully almost everyone has switched to telegram
We obviously need some presence on the dominant platforms in order to spread our ideas but their is no reason not to use the older, stable, free and faster technologies.
“These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.”
Somewhere in my mind, this seems incorrect. The concept of freedom seems fairly universal, That ownership minus consent, compelling another against their will in my view appears to have been the cause conflict the world over. The right of self apart from others to choose one’s course.
I would call it the right of selfishness, right up there with the right of privacy, to have an identity apart from all others and to guard the same by setting limits.
The first time a child says,
“no”
to a parent they are set upon setting some limit to others of imposing their will.
—————————————
I have known christian pastors that contend for the christian there are no rights, certainly none that include free speech or privacy. Though in my view that ignores context. Two scriptures come to mind
one that states all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial — with respect to expression
the other is the reference that each one should attend to their own affairs *minding one’s business) strongly suggests — privacy exists even for people of faith.
————————————-
Right to self in my view is the cornerstone of all other rights and it is natural
Two problems with this interpretation of the Second Amendment. The first and most overlooked is that in 1791 firearms were very expensive and owned by few. In the days before factories, each was handmade by a skilled gunsmith and might cost the buyer a half year’s wages or more. In addition, possession of powder and shot was strictly regulated. They were by municipal law stored in town magazines, not singly in people’s homes. Virtually every old American city still has a Powderhouse Road or a Magazine Street testifying to this nearly universal practice.
Consequently gun crime was all but unheard of in early America. It was the Civil War that changed Americans’ habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of violent crime and homicide speak eloquently of the result.
Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators. They met in Philadelphia with the announced intent to revise the Articles of Confederation – which had termed each state “sovereign and independent” – but instead, in secret session, they threw out America’s first constitution altogether and replaced it with a strong central government in which all power was effectively consolidated in their hands. They then sent it to select ratifying conventions where only a tiny fraction of Americans was allowed to vote to accept or reject this virtual coup d’etat.
It is impossible after such a breathtaking power grab that they would deliberately install a mechanism by which the people could remove them from that power. “Well-regulated” means by them, for their behalf, period. Do some research – don’t let mistaken hero worship blind you to the fact that the “liberty” these men spoke of in such lofty terms is not what we consider freedom today.
See "Blast from the past - Disgraced fake historian Michael Bellesiles".
A problem exists with the unlimited interpretation of the First Amendment. In 1791 printing presses were very expensive and owned by few. In the days before the internet and television, news was dominated by a small number of operations back by the wealthy.
Attempting to create a framework that allows 'deconstruction' of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights is a mistake. Once the camel's nose of 'deconstruction ' enters the tent by undermining one Right -- The precedent is set for the elimination of other Rights. The Constitution is already in a precarious condition as all three branches of the Federal government blatantly ignore Amendment X.
The Constitution provides an Amendment process that can be used to alter most parts of the document. If you wish to weaken the 2nd Amendment, you need to pass and ratify an Amendment. This is not unprecedented. Prohibition was Amended in XVIII and then out XXI.
PEACE 😇Replies: @dfordoom
For one thing, gun ownership was VERY common on the American frontier, from Pennsylvania to Kentucky and beyond. I know those gun craftsmen you're talking about, the makers of the so-called Pennsylvania long rifle, because they were my own relatives. Some of their guns were quite expensive, yes, but by the middle of the 1700s the average frontiersman had reasonably cheap access to "squirrel guns" - light caliber muzzleloaders that were still capable of killing deer and men. Daniel Morgan's famous riflemen would not have been so capable if they hadn't, all of them, grown up around firearms.
As for the Civil War, the disruption of war, not guns, was what caused the so-called massive spike in violence.
⏫ TRUMP 2020 ⏫
______________
(1) https://pjmedia.com/trending/democrats-want-to-create-the-irresponsible-society/Replies: @res
Good article. Thanks. ‘The Irresponsible Society’ has possibilities.
We need a way to laugh at posters who are incompetent, like AS. The troll button is the wrong choice. He is not maliciously trolling. AS is doing the best he can with his Persian less than 80 IQ. All you can do is LOL at his weird efforts, bizarre tangents, and amusing inconsistencies.
PEACE 😇Replies: @res
LOLa and LOLw? I am guilty of using LOL in both fashions. I think it is usually clear from context, but am not always sure and feel the need to clarify occasionally.
I think it is worth putting some numbers to this. One thing which tends to go underremarked when talking about this is how the definition of “urban” has changed in the US Census.
https://www.census.gov/history/www/programs/geography/urban_and_rural_areas.html
Detailed numbers from 1790-2010 for the US and the individual states are available at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States#Historical_statistics
This graphic does a good job of capturing the trend until 1990. And also shows the interesting fact that the rural population has changed little since 1910 or so. From
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245440361_Regional_and_Global_Patterns_of_Population_Land_Use_and_Land_Cover_Change_An_Overview_of_Stressors_and_Impacts
P.S. Thanks for the photos vividly illustrating your points in comment 30.
Consequently gun crime was all but unheard of in early America. It was the Civil War that changed Americans' habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of violent crime and homicide speak eloquently of the result.
Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators. They met in Philadelphia with the announced intent to revise the Articles of Confederation - which had termed each state “sovereign and independent” - but instead, in secret session, they threw out America’s first constitution altogether and replaced it with a strong central government in which all power was effectively consolidated in their hands. They then sent it to select ratifying conventions where only a tiny fraction of Americans was allowed to vote to accept or reject this virtual coup d’etat.
It is impossible after such a breathtaking power grab that they would deliberately install a mechanism by which the people could remove them from that power. “Well-regulated” means by them, for their behalf, period. Do some research - don't let mistaken hero worship blind you to the fact that the "liberty" these men spoke of in such lofty terms is not what we consider freedom today.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @A123, @Joe Stalin, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
I don’t know where you do your research, Mr. Observator, but you deserve all your money back. You do know that Michael Bellesiles’ book was discredited almost 20 years back, don’t you? Speaking of money back, Columbia University, for the one and only time, asked for its money back that was part of the Bancroft prize mis-awarded to shyster historyain’t Bellesiles. That sounds like where you got your material for this bogus comment from.
See “Blast from the past – Disgraced fake historian Michael Bellesiles”.
Consequently gun crime was all but unheard of in early America. It was the Civil War that changed Americans' habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of violent crime and homicide speak eloquently of the result.
Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators. They met in Philadelphia with the announced intent to revise the Articles of Confederation - which had termed each state “sovereign and independent” - but instead, in secret session, they threw out America’s first constitution altogether and replaced it with a strong central government in which all power was effectively consolidated in their hands. They then sent it to select ratifying conventions where only a tiny fraction of Americans was allowed to vote to accept or reject this virtual coup d’etat.
It is impossible after such a breathtaking power grab that they would deliberately install a mechanism by which the people could remove them from that power. “Well-regulated” means by them, for their behalf, period. Do some research - don't let mistaken hero worship blind you to the fact that the "liberty" these men spoke of in such lofty terms is not what we consider freedom today.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @A123, @Joe Stalin, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
Are you also proposing a similar structure for the 1st Amendment? After all:
A problem exists with the unlimited interpretation of the First Amendment. In 1791 printing presses were very expensive and owned by few. In the days before the internet and television, news was dominated by a small number of operations back by the wealthy.
Attempting to create a framework that allows ‘deconstruction’ of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights is a mistake. Once the camel’s nose of ‘deconstruction ‘ enters the tent by undermining one Right — The precedent is set for the elimination of other Rights. The Constitution is already in a precarious condition as all three branches of the Federal government blatantly ignore Amendment X.
The Constitution provides an Amendment process that can be used to alter most parts of the document. If you wish to weaken the 2nd Amendment, you need to pass and ratify an Amendment. This is not unprecedented. Prohibition was Amended in XVIII and then out XXI.
PEACE 😇
And today news is of course dominated by a small number of operations backed by the wealthy. That's how the wealthy have always wanted things. That's how they intend to keep things.
It's very unlikely that the framers of the Bill of Rights saw things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc the way we do. They saw freedom of speech as a guarantee that men like them (the elites) would have the right to express their political views. They did not anticipate the growth of weird and wonderful political ideologies like Marxism, fascism, Nazism, etc.
They did not anticipate that it would be argued that freedom of religion should be extended to witches and Satanists, or Hindus and Buddhists. They expected that it would apply to various Christian sects and to deists and atheists. In other words, to the kinds of beliefs they held.
It's also unlikely that they expected the right to bear arms to apply to handguns, handguns being not much of a thing back then (being limited mostly to single-shot muzzle-loading pistols accurate to a range of about six feet) and being of little relevance to a well-ordered militia. It's also likely that they expected the right to bear arms to be limited in practice to those who might actually serve in a well-ordered militia. And it is likely that they thought a well-ordered militia would be useful to maintain the privileges of the wealthy. That is after all the primary purpose of any military - to keep the ruling class in power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-dm3hsmHGghttps://takecountryback.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/paycheck-the-album-that-never-was/Replies: @Charles Pewitt
Johnny Paycheck’s birth name was Donald Eugene Lytle and he was 5 feet 5 inches tall and he was born in Ohio.
My message to the ruling class of the American Empire:
Take the government’s debt and all the other debt and shove it, young White Core Americans ain’t being government mules for your rotten central banker shysterism no more.
Lytle Surname:
Read more: https://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Lytle#ixzz6CLsZlLhL
Wonder if there have been polls done on this? 🤔
Peace.Replies: @Mark G.
There has been a poll done on whether women prefer more muscular men. It used bmi which is an imperfect measure but gives you a general idea of what women prefer. Women were shown men of various bmi levels and asked which were the most attractive. They picked men at a 25 bmi. So, for example, an average height 5’9″ male with a 25 bmi would weigh 170 pounds. That is not skinny but it also is not what you would see in the bodybuilder magazines. 170 pounds would have been about the average weight for a 5’9″ male in 1960 as you can see in the chart A.E. put in his post but it is much higher now so most current day males would be more attractive to women if they weighed less than they do. Interestingly, men were also shown photos of males and asked what size they would like to be. They picked a bmi of 26 instead of the 25 women picked. So most men would like to be a little more muscular than women actually prefer.
“Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators.”
Here’s your hurdle. They had the good sense not to limit what they gave to themselves, but extended said rights to be inclusive, eventually removing any barrier to benefit or responsibility save two
age and citizenship
Consequently gun crime was all but unheard of in early America. It was the Civil War that changed Americans' habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of violent crime and homicide speak eloquently of the result.
Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators. They met in Philadelphia with the announced intent to revise the Articles of Confederation - which had termed each state “sovereign and independent” - but instead, in secret session, they threw out America’s first constitution altogether and replaced it with a strong central government in which all power was effectively consolidated in their hands. They then sent it to select ratifying conventions where only a tiny fraction of Americans was allowed to vote to accept or reject this virtual coup d’etat.
It is impossible after such a breathtaking power grab that they would deliberately install a mechanism by which the people could remove them from that power. “Well-regulated” means by them, for their behalf, period. Do some research - don't let mistaken hero worship blind you to the fact that the "liberty" these men spoke of in such lofty terms is not what we consider freedom today.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @A123, @Joe Stalin, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
Consequently gun crime was all but unheard of in early America. It was the Civil War that changed Americans' habits and accustomed men to the daily carrying and use of firearms. The massive postwar spikes in the rates of violent crime and homicide speak eloquently of the result.
Secondly I find it amazing that people think the Second Amendment is there so that the people could resist “government tyranny.” Look at who drafted the Constitution: the nation’s wealthiest merchants, land owners and slave owners, war profiteers and speculators. They met in Philadelphia with the announced intent to revise the Articles of Confederation - which had termed each state “sovereign and independent” - but instead, in secret session, they threw out America’s first constitution altogether and replaced it with a strong central government in which all power was effectively consolidated in their hands. They then sent it to select ratifying conventions where only a tiny fraction of Americans was allowed to vote to accept or reject this virtual coup d’etat.
It is impossible after such a breathtaking power grab that they would deliberately install a mechanism by which the people could remove them from that power. “Well-regulated” means by them, for their behalf, period. Do some research - don't let mistaken hero worship blind you to the fact that the "liberty" these men spoke of in such lofty terms is not what we consider freedom today.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @A123, @Joe Stalin, @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
My gosh, where did you do your research? IT SUCKS.
For one thing, gun ownership was VERY common on the American frontier, from Pennsylvania to Kentucky and beyond. I know those gun craftsmen you’re talking about, the makers of the so-called Pennsylvania long rifle, because they were my own relatives. Some of their guns were quite expensive, yes, but by the middle of the 1700s the average frontiersman had reasonably cheap access to “squirrel guns” – light caliber muzzleloaders that were still capable of killing deer and men. Daniel Morgan’s famous riflemen would not have been so capable if they hadn’t, all of them, grown up around firearms.
As for the Civil War, the disruption of war, not guns, was what caused the so-called massive spike in violence.
My message to the ruling class of the American Empire:
Take the government's debt and all the other debt and shove it, young White Core Americans ain't being government mules for your rotten central banker shysterism no more.
Lytle Surname:Read more: https://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Lytle#ixzz6CLsZlLhLReplies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
Mike Judge did a great animated program about the life of Donny Lytle, aka Johnny Paycheck. For many years, his band members were his childhood cronies from Greenfield, Ohio – four brothers, in fact.. They used his real name interchangeably with his alias. One of them joked that “Paycheck” had the ultimate Napoleon complex – “he was intimidated by anyone over 4 feet tall.”
Lytle/Paycheck also had a complete and utter disregard for the law when he was drinking.
Thank for you this.
Yes, your average Pennsylvania frontiersmen of the time was disgusted with the British authorities because they were attempting to deny them their tools for hunting and self-defense while selfish Indian traders illegally sold gunpowder to the Indians!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Boys
Here’s a bulky 30s guy with a tat, doesn’t look as if he has too much trouble attracting women even though he’s poor and short of work. Thomas Cave snapped by Dorothea Lange in Oregon, 1939.
I've mentioned this squib before:
Dictatorships squelch free speech because they fear too many people will care. Our Western liberal democracies allow free speech because they know no one gives a damn.
Free speech--dissent--is suppressed in the West through criminal and civil misconduct, bribery as one example, and by legal means, such as workplace or neighborhood shunning, various other tools of intimidation. Suppression of free speech is never presented as the real reason for harassing the living daylights out of someone. (There's at least one writer whose name I've forgotten who claims the thicket of laws and regulations we live under is so dense it's impossible to go through the day without being in violation of law or out of compliance with rules.)
Our mass media daily generate oceans of writing, still and moving pictures, and oral communication undreamed of by an American frontiersman reading a weekly broadside in 1820. My impression is that mass media offer something like an "opiate of the masses", a psychological tonic or conditioner, or therapeutic rhetoric. I'm thinking of showmen-journalists such as Van Gordon Sauter and Roger Ailes here.
Well, the above submitted on a FWIW basis.Replies: @anon, @The Wild Geese Howard
TPTB very much see this as a feature, rather than a bug in our system.
Natural law is one of those terms like "community standards" that means whatever you want it to mean.
If natural law is the same as God-given rights then how come no set of religious laws has ever included freedom of speech?
These pre-existing rights existed only in the minds of late 18th century proto-liberals.Replies: @iffen, @Intelligent Dasein
No, the natural law is a corollary of any type of essentialism and it is well-defined in Aristotelian-Thomism. It means, very simply, the law that pertains to something of or according to its own nature, and it is not limited to interactions between human beings. The natural laws are the laws of nature, as the name would suggest. What we would call the laws of physics are one part of the natural law. The part that pertains to human beings derives from the definition of man as a rational animal. All animals are living, and all living things by natural seek to preserve themselves. Man is an animal and therefore possesses a natural right to self-defense. But there is no corresponding natural right to the freedom of speech. That man is rational endows him with the faculty of speech, but the role of reason is to arrive at truth. Man has a right to speak that which is truthful and wholesome, but “error has no rights” and can be lawfully suppressed.
In actual state of nature, free speech rules, any animal can howl as it wants.
(at least until stronger animal comes and silences it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCsT2XQ81h0
Fat kids do not deserve a hellacious taunting. Doing this is tantamount to child abuse. They should be educated about fitness and health as should fat adults. Kids who are endlessly taunted or bullied at school very often become dangerous to society as adults. Now I'm going to give you some hellacious taunting about your punctuation, looking at it burns my eyes.Replies: @prime noticer
“Fat kids do not deserve a hellacious taunting. Doing this is tantamount to child abuse.”
totally wrong. Gunnery Sergeant Hartman had the correct idea. and so did the rest of society before the Cultural Marxists showed up.
now here’s what we get today thanks to the Fat Enabler idiots.
I get whiplash from reading your comments. Some very interesting and incisive and give much food for thought, but some, like this one, struggle to be sublime bullshit.
That is not at all what it implies, and it’s just these sorts of unmerited leaps of logic that make the whole Truther mindset so laughably contrived. All it proves is that some Israeli dudes stopped what they were doing to film once-in-a-lifetime event unfolding before them. Who wouldn’t want to stand there and watch that awesome and terrible event take place?
This part is correct. The government was hiding something massive on 9/11. It was hiding the fact that one of its own assets, its own-funded and own-equipped Jihadis, had turned around and attacked their benefactor. Dick Cheney was probably freaking out that morning assuming that everyone knew what he knew bloody well, viz. that al-Qaeda was a CIA attack dog that had slipped its leash. But Cheney drastically overestimated the American public’s ability to connect the dots or even to care. The Iraq War was not only a distraction, it was a totally unnecessary distraction given the apathy of the mark.
Since that time, the truth about al-Qaeda has gradually entered the mainstream through a series of modified limited hangouts without ever being officially admitted to. Nowadays it is almost common knowledge that the people who attacked us on 9/11 also worked part time for the CIA, but the original emotions engendered by the event still operate independantly of this new knowledge, and nobody really strives to connect the two on the level of conscious and deliberate assessment and response.
So, yes, there was a conspiracy. But garden variety 9/11-Trutherism (i.e. the nonsense about controlled demolitions and so forth) is so absurd as to be even worse than the “official story.”
I used very simple language to describe a not-very-recondite concept. How could I have possibly been any clearer?
In other words, “natural law” is product of fantasies of medieval monks sitting in cloister cells, completely ignorant what actually happens in nature.
In actual state of nature, free speech rules, any animal can howl as it wants.
(at least until stronger animal comes and silences it.)
https://www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-itReplies: @JackOH
A339, yep, that’s the book. Many thanks.
said comment
1-10 scale, 10 being the bestest
style 9
substance 1
Ahahahaha
Yes, they “just stopped” by to film. What a riot. Thanks for the laugh pal.
Now, even if we assumed it was normal to flick lighters while watching a terrorist attack upon the World Trade Center, let us ignore that, and ask, who were these Israeli dudes?
Well, we know for a fact that the FBI confirmed that they were Mossad, low-level operatives sent to “document the event” – as one of them himself said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw&feature=youtu.be&t=81
These were men with documented connections to Israeli intelligence. They were working for a moving company that appears to have been a Mossad front, and they were here without permits. They were detained after being seen celebrating an event that no one, seemingly, knew was going to happen. The truth is that the FBI drag net caught a Mossad spy ring that was in the U.S., at a minimum, to document an event that the Israelis no doubt knew was going to happen.
You, sir, have produced one of the finest jokes I’ve ever seen in the TUR comment sections.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6928937/Michelle-Obama-Paris-cruise-Notre-Dame-caught-fire.html
You can see the reflection in her wine glass, ffs.
Fat shaming children is horrible, and it has a tendency to morph into sexual harassment as girls develop and stupid little boys don’t understand what’s normal for girls that age.
Kids really don’t have the self-control necessary to manage their weight. If anything, it’s the parents fault, but then, that’s not entirely true, either. Some kids are genetically more prone to weight gain that others, and the only way to manage it is with physical activity, and lots of it. Everyone is too afraid to let their children play outside alone, for understandable reasons, and it is nearly impossible to provide the recommended 2 hours of physical activity a day to children who are in school.
As a society becomes more prosperous, more leisure time for physical activity should be a given, but the forty-four workweek is just taken for granted. Why?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190329130227.htmReplies: @216, @Lidia
Kids really don't have the self-control necessary to manage their weight. If anything, it's the parents fault, but then, that's not entirely true, either. Some kids are genetically more prone to weight gain that others, and the only way to manage it is with physical activity, and lots of it. Everyone is too afraid to let their children play outside alone, for understandable reasons, and it is nearly impossible to provide the recommended 2 hours of physical activity a day to children who are in school.Replies: @Rosie
FWIW, there is new research to suggest that calorie expenditure correlates better with weight loss maintenance than calorie restriction. That is, people who don’t diet, but exercise a lot to compensate seem to do better. So yeah, self-discipline pretty much sucks. You’re a lot more likely to succeed long-term if you find something you like to do that helps you balance your energy than if you decide to constantly fight your appetite and food preferences.
As a society becomes more prosperous, more leisure time for physical activity should be a given, but the forty-four workweek is just taken for granted. Why?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190329130227.htm
Energy on the left seems more dedicated to "command and control" approaches to solving obesity. That is, taxes, regulation and shoehorning in veganism, the "Striker" guy has an article about the latter in the NYC prisons/schools.Replies: @Rosie
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-aND-NUTRITION-LOSS/
“In actual state of nature, free speech rules, any animal can howl as it wants.
(at least until stronger animal comes and silences it.”
Hmmm, except animals are actually engaged in communicating when they exercise vocalizations. And that can be a very complex set of meanings. We have assumed a superior existence on the contend, that we are the only beings who create new language for new constructs (experience). I question that argument because we simply don’t know enough about language of less “sophisticated” beings.
And what we do know is that even among animals there are communication rules.
——————–
“now here’s what we get today thanks to the Fat Enabler idiots.”
laugh
She is not going to be in anyone’s fighting hole.
——————–
” . . . for understandable reasons, and it is nearly impossible to provide the recommended 2 hours of physical activity a day to children who are in school.”
that’s an interesting expectation. it’s hard to imagine that is a standard, according to the CDC, 0 minutes a day is sufficent.
But it causes me to laugh, because when I was a kid, if I ever was a kid, my parents attempting to get me into the house for anything including dinner — from whatever ourdoor activity engaged my youthful being – youthful exuberance” to borrow from Dir. Greenspan, was usually eventually followed up with some benign threat.
https://startingstrength.com/article/maybe-you-should-gain-weightReplies: @Audacious Epigone
An adult male weighs at least 200 pounds.
that's an interesting expectation. it's hard to imagine that is a standard, according to the CDC, 0 minutes a day is sufficent.
But it causes me to laugh, because when I was a kid, if I ever was a kid, my parents attempting to get me into the house for anything including dinner --- from whatever ourdoor activity engaged my youthful being - youthful exuberance" to borrow from Dir. Greenspan, was usually eventually followed up with some benign threat.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie
I can’t explain it. I don’t know what has changed. All I know is that the thought of letting my children run loose as I did as a child absolutely terrifies me. I have talked with my mother about this, too. She can’t explain it, either, except to say that certain thoughts just never occurred to people in those more innocent times.
I doubt that the risks are any greater today but we perceive those risks as being much greater. Mostly we're wrong. Mostly the things we worry about really are not worth worrying about.
Of course media hysteria has been largely responsible. I also wonder if people are less numerate today. If you tell people that something involves a 1 in 100 risk and something else involves a 1 in 100,000 risk they don't seem to be able to appreciate the magnitude of the difference. And the media deliberately distorts our understanding of statistics.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
As a society becomes more prosperous, more leisure time for physical activity should be a given, but the forty-four workweek is just taken for granted. Why?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190329130227.htmReplies: @216, @Lidia
We’ve actually had something of a backlash to shorter working weeks. It was a cottage industry on the Right to mock the French, while lionizing Silicon Dons for their “80 hour” workweeks.
Energy on the left seems more dedicated to “command and control” approaches to solving obesity. That is, taxes, regulation and shoehorning in veganism, the “Striker” guy has an article about the latter in the NYC prisons/schools.
A theory that has occurred to me: Air conditioning.
Before air conditioning trickled down to the working classes, everyone went outside in the evening. There were so many adults around, sitting on their porches or whatever, that there was no reason to worry about the children.
With AC, it’s more comfortable inside, so that’s where people stay. Plus, nobody knows their neighbors anymore.
On the hottest summer days without AC, you pretty much had to go to the pool or play in the sprinkler or something. I suspect that people have always tended to gain weight in winter, only now they’re not losing it in the summer as they used to. Heat suppresses appetite.
https://www.krem.com/mobile/article/news/health/how-the-hot-weather-impacts-your-appetite/293-579151592
Here is a fat map of the US.
And here is a chart on regional air conditioning prevalence:
I think there may be something to this, but entrenched interests wouldn’t want it talked about. They want to pretend everything is fine and everyone just needs to eat less, rather than recognize that whole lifestyles need to change.
And it is the duty of their descendants to make those rights a reality.Replies: @dfordoom
Some of those rights were nice ideas. They just have nothing to do with the mythical concept of natural law.
And given that many of those rights were essentially anti-Christian it’s hard to argue for them as God-given. There’s not much evidence that the Christian God believes in freedom of speech. Or freedom of religion.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism. They either work or they don’t. If they work they’re worth defending.
The universe doesn’t care about our rights.
Not at that time and place.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism.
This is only true for certain individuals with a certain world-view. For many (most?) they still like the idea that they are God-based.
Universe: "I'm taking you along with me in eventual heat-death, human - bwahahahahahaha!!!"
Peace.
Energy on the left seems more dedicated to "command and control" approaches to solving obesity. That is, taxes, regulation and shoehorning in veganism, the "Striker" guy has an article about the latter in the NYC prisons/schools.Replies: @Rosie
I’ve been a fan of his for years. I was thrilled to see him on TUR.
As Michelle Obama just happened to be cruising the Seine as Nôtre Dame burned.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6928937/Michelle-Obama-Paris-cruise-Notre-Dame-caught-fire.html
You can see the reflection in her wine glass, ffs.
As a society becomes more prosperous, more leisure time for physical activity should be a given, but the forty-four workweek is just taken for granted. Why?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190329130227.htmReplies: @216, @Lidia
It’s also the case that food is less nutritious than it was in the past. Most vegetables have way fewer real nutrients and are more or less simulacrums of food. People eat more because their bodies are starved at some level, not in terms of sheer calories.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-aND-NUTRITION-LOSS/
And given that many of those rights were essentially anti-Christian it's hard to argue for them as God-given. There's not much evidence that the Christian God believes in freedom of speech. Or freedom of religion.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism. They either work or they don't. If they work they're worth defending.
The universe doesn't care about our rights.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @iffen, @Talha
It appears that the abuses of the Churches of Rome and England did much to convince the Founders that allowing error was preferable to dictating it.
There’s a critical mass issue, as well. Where I live, in a somewhat rural area, kids are out and about. Where my sister lives, there are more kids, but it’s like a neutron bomb has gone off on their street. No one goes out, because nobody else is out. She was scolded by her neighbor for letting her kids ride bikes in their own driveway without helmets. Her 12-y.o. kid was reported to the school principle because he was spotted “outside of adult supervision” at some other kid’s house before school hours. West Hartford, CT. SMH.
A problem exists with the unlimited interpretation of the First Amendment. In 1791 printing presses were very expensive and owned by few. In the days before the internet and television, news was dominated by a small number of operations back by the wealthy.
Attempting to create a framework that allows 'deconstruction' of Constitutionally guaranteed Rights is a mistake. Once the camel's nose of 'deconstruction ' enters the tent by undermining one Right -- The precedent is set for the elimination of other Rights. The Constitution is already in a precarious condition as all three branches of the Federal government blatantly ignore Amendment X.
The Constitution provides an Amendment process that can be used to alter most parts of the document. If you wish to weaken the 2nd Amendment, you need to pass and ratify an Amendment. This is not unprecedented. Prohibition was Amended in XVIII and then out XXI.
PEACE 😇Replies: @dfordoom
Ironically that’s pretty accurate!
And today news is of course dominated by a small number of operations backed by the wealthy. That’s how the wealthy have always wanted things. That’s how they intend to keep things.
It’s very unlikely that the framers of the Bill of Rights saw things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc the way we do. They saw freedom of speech as a guarantee that men like them (the elites) would have the right to express their political views. They did not anticipate the growth of weird and wonderful political ideologies like Marxism, fascism, Nazism, etc.
They did not anticipate that it would be argued that freedom of religion should be extended to witches and Satanists, or Hindus and Buddhists. They expected that it would apply to various Christian sects and to deists and atheists. In other words, to the kinds of beliefs they held.
It’s also unlikely that they expected the right to bear arms to apply to handguns, handguns being not much of a thing back then (being limited mostly to single-shot muzzle-loading pistols accurate to a range of about six feet) and being of little relevance to a well-ordered militia. It’s also likely that they expected the right to bear arms to be limited in practice to those who might actually serve in a well-ordered militia. And it is likely that they thought a well-ordered militia would be useful to maintain the privileges of the wealthy. That is after all the primary purpose of any military – to keep the ruling class in power.
that's an interesting expectation. it's hard to imagine that is a standard, according to the CDC, 0 minutes a day is sufficent.
But it causes me to laugh, because when I was a kid, if I ever was a kid, my parents attempting to get me into the house for anything including dinner --- from whatever ourdoor activity engaged my youthful being - youthful exuberance" to borrow from Dir. Greenspan, was usually eventually followed up with some benign threat.Replies: @Rosie, @Rosie
Actually, I was wrong. I don’t know where I got the two hour thing. It’s what I shoot for, anyway, and I’m not going to change that.
It’s actually one hour for school aged children. That is, one hour of “moderate-intensity” aerobic exercise (heart rate elevated, breathing faster). I personally would consider that “vigorous” exercise, but whatever.
https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/children/index.htm
We’re not as good at judging risks as we used to be. We tend to exaggerate risks. When I was a kid we were allowed to do pretty much what we wanted. If we wanted to walk to the local park to play we were allowed to. Parents weren’t stupid. They knew there were risks but they (correctly) judged the risks to be so small as to be not worth worrying about. Certainly not enough to prevent kids from enjoying themselves.
I doubt that the risks are any greater today but we perceive those risks as being much greater. Mostly we’re wrong. Mostly the things we worry about really are not worth worrying about.
Of course media hysteria has been largely responsible. I also wonder if people are less numerate today. If you tell people that something involves a 1 in 100 risk and something else involves a 1 in 100,000 risk they don’t seem to be able to appreciate the magnitude of the difference. And the media deliberately distorts our understanding of statistics.
https://miro.medium.com/max/6872/1*NgA3x0oxxsaOx4-iUW4DyA.jpegReplies: @dfordoom
correction:
that’s an interesting expectation. it’s hard to imagine that is a standard, according to the CDC, 60 minutes a day is sufficient.
” That is, one hour of “moderate-intensity” aerobic exercise (heart rate elevated, breathing faster)”
Gracious not to make a deal of my typo. But when us old folks wee young, being out doors for two hours was barely time to get a team together
I doubt that the risks are any greater today but we perceive those risks as being much greater. Mostly we're wrong. Mostly the things we worry about really are not worth worrying about.
Of course media hysteria has been largely responsible. I also wonder if people are less numerate today. If you tell people that something involves a 1 in 100 risk and something else involves a 1 in 100,000 risk they don't seem to be able to appreciate the magnitude of the difference. And the media deliberately distorts our understanding of statistics.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
I dunno. My tolerance for any risk of that sort is roughly nil. Even 1/1,000,000 is too much risk. I also wonder if parts of tha reason stranger abduction/murder would be more common if people weren’t hovering. I suppose you could look at the data over time, but then even 9f rates were low in the past, that doesn’t mean they would remain so in the current year.
You also have to consider psychological costs. Helicopter parenting may keep kids safe from some risks but the kids may never learn to avoid risks on their own. At some stage kids have to learn to analyse situations for themselves and keep themselves safe.
Or the kids may end up being excessively timid and unable to function socially.
I can understand why parents want to minimise risks. But risks are complicated things. You can go running to minimise your risk of a heart attack and instead get run over by a bus whilst running.
No, I’m not confusing the police state with the Deep State. And by the way, pace the remarks of some other respondants above, soft social pressure is not a police state and referring to it as such is just going to end up making you look silly.
Now, concerning the TSA, I think it’s important to keep a broader perspective here. Everything that the TSA now does, as intrusive as you find it to be, was pretty much the norm in most other countries in the world even long before 9/11.
And I am old enough to remember flying in a different era. I took many cross-country flights as a kid in the ’80s to spend summers with my grandparents. I remember when you could whisk into the airport 15 minutes before your scheduled departure, trot unobstructed down the concourse, and hug your loved ones goodbye at the boarding ramp. At some point the authorities decided that this was all too much of a security liability, and in this day and age it probably is.
It’s the same situation with gas stations. Gas pumps used to relatively simple affairs that would simply record your pumped volume and display a price, with the expectation that people would be honest enough to head into the station and pay. But too many people were gassing up and dashing off, so gas companies changed the arrangement. Now you either have to prepay inside the store or insert your credit card into the pump before it will dispense any gas in the first place, but I don’t often hear anybody complaining about the lost “freedoms” of the gasoline transaction.
When you look around you today, there are some things that are tightly controlled and many others that are not. It’s all a question of where society decides to apply its efforts, and the calculus keeps changing with the passage of time. Right now in America you may feel very unfree if you’re a lower middle class white man with conservative views; you feel great if you’re a Mexican immigrant with a yob at the chicken plant. The rules are no longer made in our favor, but this only underscores the point that these so-called rights are at best political privileges, incentives, or weapons.
There's a world of difference between hard totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism but soft totalitarianism is still a bad thing. In fact it can be a very bad thing because it can become a kind of self-enforced totalitarianism.
Until, 2001, a domestic passenger on an airliner needed no ID. This is an important concept no matter what the young people, who have no concept of freedom, would say about it. The airlines cared that you paid your way, that's all. It was nobody's damn business who you were! That is so far from today's world it does make this a different country, 18 years later.
I have multiple stories of using someone else's 1/2 of a round-trip ticket, which was perfectly legal. Once, I brought a guy's car across the country, and he flew and gave me his ticket back. Now, with girls' name (not the case here), you could run into a problem. That was between you and the airline, i.e., a contractual matter, not some kind of criminal thing.*
If you're old enough to remember the 1980s, I.D., you really ought to remember when cops weren't' stationed at perfectly-nice elementary schools. STATIONED THERE! I don't recall a single time when a cop had to even go to our school, elem. school excepted only because I can't remember too much of it. Fist fight between 8th graders got broken up by other students and a male teacher if necessary. Nobody got marks on his permanent record (were there such a thing), and no cops had to come screaming in to the school.
If you're old enough to remember the 1980s, then you remember when cops looked like human beings, not roided-up Pillsbury dough boys. They didn't wear the armor, and they acted like human beings. Putting two things together here, I used to carry no driver's license, no ID of any kind, just some folding money, some change, and my keys, in my pockets.
I've gotten pulled over more than the average guy, BY FAR, and back in the past, the cop would just radio in my DL number. It used to be pretty mellow, and I even had a guy walk with me over to a hardware store to get a screwdriver to put on my new State's plate (only been there 2 years!) that were sitting on the floorboards. The store was closed, but the cop was so decent, that I put the plates on that night when I got to my toolbox, just in case I were to see him again, as I'd be very ashamed of having let him down.
Then, I got an $80 fine for nothing wrong but not having the license on me on day, as I got into a DUI traffic check point - it was the latter that made me realize the Police State implementation was well in progress. The check was sent back due to my foul language in the memo field.
More to come ...
.
** Sure, of course, they'd rather you buy another ticket. As you recall RT tickets used to be the same prices as OW, so it seemed natural to want to use both halves.Replies: @JackOH
https://miro.medium.com/max/6872/1*NgA3x0oxxsaOx4-iUW4DyA.jpegReplies: @dfordoom
But to give one example, if you drive your kids everywhere to keep them safe you’re exposing them to the risks of being killed or injured in an auto accident. You can’t reduce risks to zero and in practice you have to weigh up one set of risks against another.
You also have to consider psychological costs. Helicopter parenting may keep kids safe from some risks but the kids may never learn to avoid risks on their own. At some stage kids have to learn to analyse situations for themselves and keep themselves safe.
Or the kids may end up being excessively timid and unable to function socially.
I can understand why parents want to minimise risks. But risks are complicated things. You can go running to minimise your risk of a heart attack and instead get run over by a bus whilst running.
Now, concerning the TSA, I think it's important to keep a broader perspective here. Everything that the TSA now does, as intrusive as you find it to be, was pretty much the norm in most other countries in the world even long before 9/11.
And I am old enough to remember flying in a different era. I took many cross-country flights as a kid in the '80s to spend summers with my grandparents. I remember when you could whisk into the airport 15 minutes before your scheduled departure, trot unobstructed down the concourse, and hug your loved ones goodbye at the boarding ramp. At some point the authorities decided that this was all too much of a security liability, and in this day and age it probably is.
It's the same situation with gas stations. Gas pumps used to relatively simple affairs that would simply record your pumped volume and display a price, with the expectation that people would be honest enough to head into the station and pay. But too many people were gassing up and dashing off, so gas companies changed the arrangement. Now you either have to prepay inside the store or insert your credit card into the pump before it will dispense any gas in the first place, but I don't often hear anybody complaining about the lost "freedoms" of the gasoline transaction.
When you look around you today, there are some things that are tightly controlled and many others that are not. It's all a question of where society decides to apply its efforts, and the calculus keeps changing with the passage of time. Right now in America you may feel very unfree if you're a lower middle class white man with conservative views; you feel great if you're a Mexican immigrant with a yob at the chicken plant. The rules are no longer made in our favor, but this only underscores the point that these so-called rights are at best political privileges, incentives, or weapons.Replies: @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman
Agreed. But soft totalitarianism is still a kind of totalitarianism. It might be a much nicer much kinder much gentler form of totalitarianism but the end result is still coerced social conformity.
There’s a world of difference between hard totalitarianism and soft totalitarianism but soft totalitarianism is still a bad thing. In fact it can be a very bad thing because it can become a kind of self-enforced totalitarianism.
And he eats meat and drinks whole milk, and anyone who disagrees is a communist infiltrator.
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”
― Mark Rippetoe
And given that many of those rights were essentially anti-Christian it's hard to argue for them as God-given. There's not much evidence that the Christian God believes in freedom of speech. Or freedom of religion.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism. They either work or they don't. If they work they're worth defending.
The universe doesn't care about our rights.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @iffen, @Talha
… it’s hard to argue for them as God-given …
Not at that time and place.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism.
This is only true for certain individuals with a certain world-view. For many (most?) they still like the idea that they are God-based.
Now, concerning the TSA, I think it's important to keep a broader perspective here. Everything that the TSA now does, as intrusive as you find it to be, was pretty much the norm in most other countries in the world even long before 9/11.
And I am old enough to remember flying in a different era. I took many cross-country flights as a kid in the '80s to spend summers with my grandparents. I remember when you could whisk into the airport 15 minutes before your scheduled departure, trot unobstructed down the concourse, and hug your loved ones goodbye at the boarding ramp. At some point the authorities decided that this was all too much of a security liability, and in this day and age it probably is.
It's the same situation with gas stations. Gas pumps used to relatively simple affairs that would simply record your pumped volume and display a price, with the expectation that people would be honest enough to head into the station and pay. But too many people were gassing up and dashing off, so gas companies changed the arrangement. Now you either have to prepay inside the store or insert your credit card into the pump before it will dispense any gas in the first place, but I don't often hear anybody complaining about the lost "freedoms" of the gasoline transaction.
When you look around you today, there are some things that are tightly controlled and many others that are not. It's all a question of where society decides to apply its efforts, and the calculus keeps changing with the passage of time. Right now in America you may feel very unfree if you're a lower middle class white man with conservative views; you feel great if you're a Mexican immigrant with a yob at the chicken plant. The rules are no longer made in our favor, but this only underscores the point that these so-called rights are at best political privileges, incentives, or weapons.Replies: @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman
Yes, you surely are confusing two concepts, that of the Deep State and that of the Police State. It was your business about Jeffrey Epstein, the Truthers, and this Gov. breaking the laws of physics bit. The two concepts can be related sometimes, say, by the fact that 9/11 resulted in portions of the Police State being erected mighty damn quick for acts of government. (See “Motherland Security knows best”.) They are 2 different concepts, and I was being nice to ask you if you are a mite confused.
I’m gonna write quite a bit, so I’ll break it up (and try to use some of it for a blog post)
Firstly, I didn’t mention anything about this “soft social pressure”, but I get the concept. That’s not at all what I’m writing about here. Per your example, I agree with you that the gas stations had had enough of drive-offs right at the peak of gas prices in summer of ’08 (see, I notice stuff, and I remember stuff, I.D.) and as private businesses, have every right to require payment the new way*. Indeed it is a pain in the ass now for me, because I’d rather pay cash to get the 5-10 cents off (which is eminently fair). If I want to get near a full tank, I have to go inside TWICE. This is, BTW, when people putting their hopes on the Lottery drives me nuts! I’m getting pretty good at my estimations now too.
No, TSA type searches were NOT the norm in other countries either, back in the day, barring the Communist world. In fact, just over a decade ago in China, the situation was not as 1970s America, but kind of a quick show, with no seriousness about it. Measures implemented during those years were done to please the US Gov’t’s security apparatus, not as a Chinese idea. Nowadays, at least couple of years back, anyway, it was worse than what we have here. It was a flat-out shitshow. About the only thing different is that most of their “TSA” ladies were quite cute, though not really any more pleasant. It’s not a job anyone should relish, anyone short of being a real sicko.
.
* It’s been 12 years since pre-payment became ubiquitous. Go back only a year or 2 from then, and it was still only inner-city places that made you pay ahead.
I'm not unhappy about being the occasion of such a fine, loquacious rodomontade, but I don't want attributed to me sentiments that I do not hold, either.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Now, concerning the TSA, I think it's important to keep a broader perspective here. Everything that the TSA now does, as intrusive as you find it to be, was pretty much the norm in most other countries in the world even long before 9/11.
And I am old enough to remember flying in a different era. I took many cross-country flights as a kid in the '80s to spend summers with my grandparents. I remember when you could whisk into the airport 15 minutes before your scheduled departure, trot unobstructed down the concourse, and hug your loved ones goodbye at the boarding ramp. At some point the authorities decided that this was all too much of a security liability, and in this day and age it probably is.
It's the same situation with gas stations. Gas pumps used to relatively simple affairs that would simply record your pumped volume and display a price, with the expectation that people would be honest enough to head into the station and pay. But too many people were gassing up and dashing off, so gas companies changed the arrangement. Now you either have to prepay inside the store or insert your credit card into the pump before it will dispense any gas in the first place, but I don't often hear anybody complaining about the lost "freedoms" of the gasoline transaction.
When you look around you today, there are some things that are tightly controlled and many others that are not. It's all a question of where society decides to apply its efforts, and the calculus keeps changing with the passage of time. Right now in America you may feel very unfree if you're a lower middle class white man with conservative views; you feel great if you're a Mexican immigrant with a yob at the chicken plant. The rules are no longer made in our favor, but this only underscores the point that these so-called rights are at best political privileges, incentives, or weapons.Replies: @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman, @Achmed E. Newman
If you’re old enough that you remember traveling in the 1980s, then you should remember this, I.D.:
Until, 2001, a domestic passenger on an airliner needed no ID. This is an important concept no matter what the young people, who have no concept of freedom, would say about it. The airlines cared that you paid your way, that’s all. It was nobody’s damn business who you were! That is so far from today’s world it does make this a different country, 18 years later.
I have multiple stories of using someone else’s 1/2 of a round-trip ticket, which was perfectly legal. Once, I brought a guy’s car across the country, and he flew and gave me his ticket back. Now, with girls’ name (not the case here), you could run into a problem. That was between you and the airline, i.e., a contractual matter, not some kind of criminal thing.*
If you’re old enough to remember the 1980s, I.D., you really ought to remember when cops weren’t’ stationed at perfectly-nice elementary schools. STATIONED THERE! I don’t recall a single time when a cop had to even go to our school, elem. school excepted only because I can’t remember too much of it. Fist fight between 8th graders got broken up by other students and a male teacher if necessary. Nobody got marks on his permanent record (were there such a thing), and no cops had to come screaming in to the school.
If you’re old enough to remember the 1980s, then you remember when cops looked like human beings, not roided-up Pillsbury dough boys. They didn’t wear the armor, and they acted like human beings. Putting two things together here, I used to carry no driver’s license, no ID of any kind, just some folding money, some change, and my keys, in my pockets.
I’ve gotten pulled over more than the average guy, BY FAR, and back in the past, the cop would just radio in my DL number. It used to be pretty mellow, and I even had a guy walk with me over to a hardware store to get a screwdriver to put on my new State’s plate (only been there 2 years!) that were sitting on the floorboards. The store was closed, but the cop was so decent, that I put the plates on that night when I got to my toolbox, just in case I were to see him again, as I’d be very ashamed of having let him down.
Then, I got an $80 fine for nothing wrong but not having the license on me on day, as I got into a DUI traffic check point – it was the latter that made me realize the Police State implementation was well in progress. The check was sent back due to my foul language in the memo field.
More to come …
.
** Sure, of course, they’d rather you buy another ticket. As you recall RT tickets used to be the same prices as OW, so it seemed natural to want to use both halves.
Why do people deserve the freedom to do whatever they like? Why will it offend the universe if people do not get the freedom to do whatever they like?
Maybe the root of all the problems of Western society is the Enlightenment and all the undeserved freedom it gave to people.
Until, 2001, a domestic passenger on an airliner needed no ID. This is an important concept no matter what the young people, who have no concept of freedom, would say about it. The airlines cared that you paid your way, that's all. It was nobody's damn business who you were! That is so far from today's world it does make this a different country, 18 years later.
I have multiple stories of using someone else's 1/2 of a round-trip ticket, which was perfectly legal. Once, I brought a guy's car across the country, and he flew and gave me his ticket back. Now, with girls' name (not the case here), you could run into a problem. That was between you and the airline, i.e., a contractual matter, not some kind of criminal thing.*
If you're old enough to remember the 1980s, I.D., you really ought to remember when cops weren't' stationed at perfectly-nice elementary schools. STATIONED THERE! I don't recall a single time when a cop had to even go to our school, elem. school excepted only because I can't remember too much of it. Fist fight between 8th graders got broken up by other students and a male teacher if necessary. Nobody got marks on his permanent record (were there such a thing), and no cops had to come screaming in to the school.
If you're old enough to remember the 1980s, then you remember when cops looked like human beings, not roided-up Pillsbury dough boys. They didn't wear the armor, and they acted like human beings. Putting two things together here, I used to carry no driver's license, no ID of any kind, just some folding money, some change, and my keys, in my pockets.
I've gotten pulled over more than the average guy, BY FAR, and back in the past, the cop would just radio in my DL number. It used to be pretty mellow, and I even had a guy walk with me over to a hardware store to get a screwdriver to put on my new State's plate (only been there 2 years!) that were sitting on the floorboards. The store was closed, but the cop was so decent, that I put the plates on that night when I got to my toolbox, just in case I were to see him again, as I'd be very ashamed of having let him down.
Then, I got an $80 fine for nothing wrong but not having the license on me on day, as I got into a DUI traffic check point - it was the latter that made me realize the Police State implementation was well in progress. The check was sent back due to my foul language in the memo field.
More to come ...
.
** Sure, of course, they'd rather you buy another ticket. As you recall RT tickets used to be the same prices as OW, so it seemed natural to want to use both halves.Replies: @JackOH
” [Y]ou really ought to remember when cops weren’t’ stationed at perfectly-nice elementary schools.”
Good catch, and those on-premises “school resource officers” have introduced a new element of intergovernmental wrangling and the political distortion that comes with it.
We had one local principal in a Whitopian district pressured out of his job (soft landing with salary and bennies) because he had wanted to not report trivial misconduct to the “school resource officer” for fear of looking bad at contract renewal time. The local PD (for obvious reasons) and some parents alleged cover-up. The way the story was framed by local reporters, it was almost laughably obvious the local PD wanted to up the school’s misconduct stats to justify budget moneys and appease politically motivated parents. (We’re talking shoving matches, towel-snapping, pocket knives, and stuff like that.)
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE "gun con... gun SAFETY" laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called "Red Flag" laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anarchyst, @JackOH, @dfordoom
And given that many of those rights were essentially anti-Christian it's hard to argue for them as God-given. There's not much evidence that the Christian God believes in freedom of speech. Or freedom of religion.
The problem is that ethics and morality and political ideology can only be based on pragmatism. They either work or they don't. If they work they're worth defending.
The universe doesn't care about our rights.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @iffen, @Talha
Humans: “Muh rightzzz!”
Universe: “I’m taking you along with me in eventual heat-death, human – bwahahahahahaha!!!”
Peace.
“The way the story was framed by local reporters, it was almost laughably obvious the local PD wanted to up the school’s misconduct stats to justify budget moneys and appease politically motivated parents.”
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE “gun con… gun SAFETY” laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called “Red Flag” laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.
After the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres, there was talk about folding them into the FBI or Treasury Department. No other agency wanted them, so their existence was continued.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are all legal...abolish them as well as the FBI...CIA and other "alphabet agencies".
As an aside, the ATF is known as "F" troop after the television comedy...lolReplies: @Achmed E. Newman
I have the cop DNA in my genes. My Dad was a police cadet in the 1930s before making a career of the Air Force. (He later learned the electrical trade, small contracting, etc, which I've mentioned here.)
Nevertheless, I've learned in the past decade or so about corrupt cops willing to work "off-shingle". Muscle for local zillionaires. Perjurers and falsifiers hiding behind a shield. Bullying, self-aggrandizing glory hounds willing to burn the house down to grab credit for putting the fire out. Pretty ugly dudes. That's just the way it is.
That awful catastrophic seizure of our precious guns made no actual difference to anything. We didn't lose any other freedoms as a result. We didn't suddenly become a tyranny. The government didn't start rounding up people and sending them to the GULAGs. We didn't become a commie dictatorship. Amazingly our elementary schools are not surrounded by armed police. Even more amazingly, we don't get gunned down in huge numbers by trigger-happy cops.
When it comes to freedom guns are an irrelevance.Replies: @Talha, @Joe Stalin
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE "gun con... gun SAFETY" laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called "Red Flag" laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anarchyst, @JackOH, @dfordoom
Joe, what was the story on J. Derbyshire’s thing? I read a lot from him, but I don’t recall this story.
I think after his son returned from the military, he was having some sort of mental issues. Somehow according to the New York laws, the police got wind of this and they pulled his pistol license. He was allowed to keep his long gun.
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE "gun con... gun SAFETY" laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called "Red Flag" laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anarchyst, @JackOH, @dfordoom
The ATF is an agency without a (valid) mission. This is why they stick their noses in what should be state and local affairs.
After the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres, there was talk about folding them into the FBI or Treasury Department. No other agency wanted them, so their existence was continued.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are all legal…abolish them as well as the FBI…CIA and other “alphabet agencies”.
As an aside, the ATF is known as “F” troop after the television comedy…lol
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE "gun con... gun SAFETY" laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called "Red Flag" laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anarchyst, @JackOH, @dfordoom
Thanks, Joe Stalin.
I have the cop DNA in my genes. My Dad was a police cadet in the 1930s before making a career of the Air Force. (He later learned the electrical trade, small contracting, etc, which I’ve mentioned here.)
Nevertheless, I’ve learned in the past decade or so about corrupt cops willing to work “off-shingle”. Muscle for local zillionaires. Perjurers and falsifiers hiding behind a shield. Bullying, self-aggrandizing glory hounds willing to burn the house down to grab credit for putting the fire out. Pretty ugly dudes. That’s just the way it is.
After the Ruby Ridge and Waco massacres, there was talk about folding them into the FBI or Treasury Department. No other agency wanted them, so their existence was continued.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are all legal...abolish them as well as the FBI...CIA and other "alphabet agencies".
As an aside, the ATF is known as "F" troop after the television comedy...lolReplies: @Achmed E. Newman
As they say, when Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is a Big-Box store, we’ll have become a free country again.
You see this happening at the Federal level when almost anything that would have happened 20 years ago that would have been handled via local resources suddenly has BATF agents running around the crime scenes. Local house fire? ATF agents. Nutcase shooting out the window with a rifle? ATF agents. Manufacturing plant explosion? ATF agents.
The ATF agents are there for the firearms-related events in order to give the MSM what they want to promote ever-MORE "gun con... gun SAFETY" laws. Was the gun legally purchased? Did it have an Evil standard-capacity magazine? Was it semi-automatic, military-STYLE, have an awful flash suppressor to facilitate shooting babies? If not, was it owned by another family member who negligently exercised his American civil rights?
Remember, Derb said he was forced to give up his Sig pistol when his son came home. Remember that when they mention how innocuous so-called "Red Flag" laws are, how the ONLY purpose of gun and owner registration is to seize YOUR gun when the powers that be no longer want you to have them. Ask the Aussies, UK people, New Zealanders.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anarchyst, @JackOH, @dfordoom
Amazingly enough Australia did not suddenly become a police state after the changes in gun laws. We’re arguably considerably less of a police state than the US.
That awful catastrophic seizure of our precious guns made no actual difference to anything. We didn’t lose any other freedoms as a result. We didn’t suddenly become a tyranny. The government didn’t start rounding up people and sending them to the GULAGs. We didn’t become a commie dictatorship. Amazingly our elementary schools are not surrounded by armed police. Even more amazingly, we don’t get gunned down in huge numbers by trigger-happy cops.
When it comes to freedom guns are an irrelevance.
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/peshawar-pakistan-jan-27-teachers-260nw-247526020.jpgThe only thing is that they are more permissive about what people own; if I recall correctly, my uncle had a G3, which I don’t think you can get in the US.A lot of it again has to do with historical legacy of a nation. Perhaps Australia, somewhat isolated and with no history of fighting against the crown (but rather for it, again and again) just doesn’t lend itself to the same culture. Plus, they seem to have some really crazy mass shootings there like that blonde dude with the long hair, right?Peace.Replies: @iffen
The worm turns. Better hope your implicit steady-state thinking works out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHsIqPE-lEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAPiIkULR7YReplies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Talha
You objected thus:
I wrote thus:
What part of “some other respondents” did you not understand?
I’m not unhappy about being the occasion of such a fine, loquacious rodomontade, but I don’t want attributed to me sentiments that I do not hold, either.
I'm not unhappy about being the occasion of such a fine, loquacious rodomontade, but I don't want attributed to me sentiments that I do not hold, either.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
I read your comment, I.D. I understand you didn’t mean me, but I was clarifying that it’s not that soft totalitarianism, possibly as bad, that I mean by “the Police State”.
Secondly, I did not order any Loquacious Rodomontade. That’s probably the guy who’s got my old cell number now. I’ll drink it if you don’t mind – you were just gonna throw it out anyway.
Well, you’ve always been one of the best commenters here and I hope we can be friends, differences notwithstanding.
That awful catastrophic seizure of our precious guns made no actual difference to anything. We didn't lose any other freedoms as a result. We didn't suddenly become a tyranny. The government didn't start rounding up people and sending them to the GULAGs. We didn't become a commie dictatorship. Amazingly our elementary schools are not surrounded by armed police. Even more amazingly, we don't get gunned down in huge numbers by trigger-happy cops.
When it comes to freedom guns are an irrelevance.Replies: @Talha, @Joe Stalin
You have to keep in mind, the US was founded as a nation brought about by citizen insurrection (listen to our national anthem) and it fought a very bloody civil war with both sides manned by citizen-soldiers. I don’t think many other nations necessarily understand the sentiment. Coming from Pakistan, a country next door to a massive existential threat, it is awash in guns (not all positive of course) and the sentiments among the people are quite similar about the God-given right to their weapons. Even aunties be packing heat:
The only thing is that they are more permissive about what people own; if I recall correctly, my uncle had a G3, which I don’t think you can get in the US.
A lot of it again has to do with historical legacy of a nation. Perhaps Australia, somewhat isolated and with no history of fighting against the crown (but rather for it, again and again) just doesn’t lend itself to the same culture. Plus, they seem to have some really crazy mass shootings there like that blonde dude with the long hair, right?
Peace.
That awful catastrophic seizure of our precious guns made no actual difference to anything. We didn't lose any other freedoms as a result. We didn't suddenly become a tyranny. The government didn't start rounding up people and sending them to the GULAGs. We didn't become a commie dictatorship. Amazingly our elementary schools are not surrounded by armed police. Even more amazingly, we don't get gunned down in huge numbers by trigger-happy cops.
When it comes to freedom guns are an irrelevance.Replies: @Talha, @Joe Stalin
“When it comes to freedom guns are an irrelevance.”
The worm turns. Better hope your implicit steady-state thinking works out.
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
The worm turns. Better hope your implicit steady-state thinking works out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHsIqPE-lEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAPiIkULR7YReplies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Talha
Post much?
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Syrian rebels, who tried hard for eight years to excercise their second amendment rights, are thoroughly screwed. Their last hideouts near Idlib are bombed round the clock and slowly squeezed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0aXM6oGM
According to second amendment logic, the Syrian war should be walkover for the rebels. Syria was full of guns, and lots of heavier equipment was captured or delivered by Santa Claus.
The government army is gaggle of unwilling conscripts led by corrupt and incompetent thugs, while the rebels are absolutely dedicated to their cause and ready to die.
There is only one detail - the government have air force (their and Russian) and the rebels have bupkis.
And the results are clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rYXqTzFT_QReplies: @Talha
The problem is that Mr. Stalin posts only Rambo and Red Dawn like fantasies about unstoppable power of rifles.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Syrian rebels, who tried hard for eight years to excercise their second amendment rights, are thoroughly screwed. Their last hideouts near Idlib are bombed round the clock and slowly squeezed out.
According to second amendment logic, the Syrian war should be walkover for the rebels. Syria was full of guns, and lots of heavier equipment was captured or delivered by Santa Claus.
The government army is gaggle of unwilling conscripts led by corrupt and incompetent thugs, while the rebels are absolutely dedicated to their cause and ready to die.
There is only one detail – the government have air force (their and Russian) and the rebels have bupkis.
And the results are clear.
Peace.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Audacious Epigone
https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/peshawar-pakistan-jan-27-teachers-260nw-247526020.jpgThe only thing is that they are more permissive about what people own; if I recall correctly, my uncle had a G3, which I don’t think you can get in the US.A lot of it again has to do with historical legacy of a nation. Perhaps Australia, somewhat isolated and with no history of fighting against the crown (but rather for it, again and again) just doesn’t lend itself to the same culture. Plus, they seem to have some really crazy mass shootings there like that blonde dude with the long hair, right?Peace.Replies: @iffen
It is also a political divide. It’s like any other issue, say, for example, climate change, you have to support “your” side.
A Chinese brother who is very much into guns (takes his kids shooting every weekend or so) was telling me about a story he heard about a Muslim hijab-wearing lady that wanted to buy a gun for her husband as a gift (I think she was either Indian or Pakistani). So she did a bunch of research and learned about guns to be more educated about the subject and when it was time to actually go to a gun shop and purchase the weapon, she was a bit apprehensive. She didn't know how she was going to be treated when they saw she was a Muslim woman, there were stereotypes about American gun enthusiasts, etc. Anyway, so she goes in and starts looking around and the staff is a bit stand-offish, but once she asked for help and started talking to them and it was clear she was interested in the subject and knew what she was talking about, they totally hit it off and the guys were super helpful and very enthusiastic. As the brother concluded; the "Brotherhood of the Gun" traverses these fault lines.
Peace.
*I'm actually in the market for a reliable handgun, and this Turkish model (not too many people know about it) seems to have a lot of great reviews. Apparently some of the guns coming out of Turkey are great items one can find - sometimes half the price of the better known ones while suffering very little loss in quality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUJDnlJWuoReplies: @iffen
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3806201/
Americans today are taller, and they are bigger, and some of that is fat, but some of it is healthy lean body mass. BMI is for anorexic dietitians. Being overweight is healthier than being in the “ideal weight” range. Being moderately obese is even healthier than being in the “ideal weight” range.
Its all b.s. because lean body mass is generally good, and excess body fat is generally bad, and relying on BMI or gross weight and drawing public health conclusions is silly, especially when you compare one population which was shorter and lower in LBM and body fat, with a taller population that is bigger in terms of LBM and body fat.
Well, as AE’s poll on gun ownership showed – on this issue – the political divide is reflective of a difference in a culture between gun-owners and those that don’t own them. It really is a difference. My wife comes from a liberal family in Berkeley and she is still just not down with guns and is uncomfortable around them. I come from a gun culture (I mean, minus the posh Westernized elites in Islamabad and such who consider gun culture deplorable) and have owned a rifle*, so I get gun culture even as it manifests in a different aesthetic.
A Chinese brother who is very much into guns (takes his kids shooting every weekend or so) was telling me about a story he heard about a Muslim hijab-wearing lady that wanted to buy a gun for her husband as a gift (I think she was either Indian or Pakistani). So she did a bunch of research and learned about guns to be more educated about the subject and when it was time to actually go to a gun shop and purchase the weapon, she was a bit apprehensive. She didn’t know how she was going to be treated when they saw she was a Muslim woman, there were stereotypes about American gun enthusiasts, etc. Anyway, so she goes in and starts looking around and the staff is a bit stand-offish, but once she asked for help and started talking to them and it was clear she was interested in the subject and knew what she was talking about, they totally hit it off and the guys were super helpful and very enthusiastic. As the brother concluded; the “Brotherhood of the Gun” traverses these fault lines.
Peace.
*I’m actually in the market for a reliable handgun, and this Turkish model (not too many people know about it) seems to have a lot of great reviews. Apparently some of the guns coming out of Turkey are great items one can find – sometimes half the price of the better known ones while suffering very little loss in quality:
Americans today are taller, and they are bigger, and some of that is fat, but some of it is healthy lean body mass. BMI is for anorexic dietitians. Being overweight is healthier than being in the "ideal weight" range. Being moderately obese is even healthier than being in the "ideal weight" range.
Its all b.s. because lean body mass is generally good, and excess body fat is generally bad, and relying on BMI or gross weight and drawing public health conclusions is silly, especially when you compare one population which was shorter and lower in LBM and body fat, with a taller population that is bigger in terms of LBM and body fat.Replies: @Mark G.
A problem with comparing overweight and average weight individuals to see who lives longer is that smokers and people with chronic illnesses often weigh less. You don’t want to compare people who are underweight for these reasons with overweight people. Some studies, though not all, that just look at individuals who have never smoked and have never had a chronic illness found that nonsmoking healthy thin people live longer than nonsmoking healthy fat people. There are a lot of complications. One study showed that instead of maintaining a constant weight through life it is more healthy to slowly gain weight as you get older. Some calorie restriction studies show longer life with calorie restriction but these are done with short lived animals like mice. It’s hard to do those types of studies with humans.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Syrian rebels, who tried hard for eight years to excercise their second amendment rights, are thoroughly screwed. Their last hideouts near Idlib are bombed round the clock and slowly squeezed out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0aXM6oGM
According to second amendment logic, the Syrian war should be walkover for the rebels. Syria was full of guns, and lots of heavier equipment was captured or delivered by Santa Claus.
The government army is gaggle of unwilling conscripts led by corrupt and incompetent thugs, while the rebels are absolutely dedicated to their cause and ready to die.
There is only one detail - the government have air force (their and Russian) and the rebels have bupkis.
And the results are clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rYXqTzFT_QReplies: @Talha
Yeah, if a modern government is willing to curb-stomp you and anyone within, say, a radius of 500 feet of you. Game over, they win. The day of storming the Bastille is basically over when dealing with a government that has at least WW2 technological capability and the will to use it.
Peace.
Bit of example of what's likely if government tries that. Two guys on an airport were playing with fireworks. They tried shooting some kind of sky rockets... using the vent pipes from the underground fuel-storage tanks as the launchers! This ignited the vapor in the pipes, and the flame front flew down into the tank proper followed immediately by BOOM! and a big fire. No more fuel coming from THAT tank, TYVM.
That was an accident. Just how hard do you think it's going to be to do it deliberately? How does the government bomb you when there's no fuel for the jets and choppers? No electricity from off-site because the substation transformers got perforated, the cooling/insulating oil ran out and the transformers arced over and melted? Someone back-pressurizes the water main upstream and puts poison in it?
After a couple incidents like that, would there BE any armed forces still under government command? You'd have whole units going AWOL just to be out of the target zone. And there wouldn't be just two; there would be thousands.
American Civil War II is a guaranteed loser for the American government. Great for China, tho'.Replies: @Talha, @another anon, @iffen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qepeCVE9nOoReplies: @Intelligent Dasein
The worm turns. Better hope your implicit steady-state thinking works out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHsIqPE-lEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAPiIkULR7YReplies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Talha
The only game changer in a Chinese invasion of Australia is if the UK said a very loud “NO” and detonated a nuclear warhead in the middle of an approaching Chinese fleet. That would get their attention real fast. Australia’s head of state is still the Queen of England. I see no reason why the world should assume the Brits would stay out of it – the Malvinas/Falklands for instance.
Peace.
And Australians know what happens when you rely on the British. One word - Singapore.
There's a term that accurately describes nations that rely on Great and Powerful friends for their defence. They're called vassal states. Australia is a US vassal state. If we're smart we'll work on becoming a Chinese vassal state. If you're going to be a vassal you might as well choose to be the vassal of a sane non-aggressive friendly nation like China rather than treacherous weasels like the British or a totally insane hyper-aggressive rogue state like the US.
Australia and China have common interests. Australia and Britain have no interests in common. Australia and the US have no interests in common. Australia has more to fear from the United States than from China.Replies: @Aldon
I’d be interested in any study links you could provide. I have had trouble finding studies like that.
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/05/a-few-extra-kilos-arent-so-good-for-you-after-all/
I've read discussions of what is the best weight for longevity for decades. The great-grandfather of all life extension books, "Life Extension" by Pearson and Shaw, back in 1983 said that studies showing weighing more is healthier didn't take into consideration that smokers and people with diseases like cancer weigh less so you need to exclude them before making comparisons. A recent critic of the idea that weighing more is healthy is Walter Willet at Harvard. See:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2013/01/09/ask-the-expert-does-being-overweight-really-decrease-mortality-no/Replies: @res
Some of what I’ve read is in books which aren’t linkable but here is one article out on the internet:
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/05/a-few-extra-kilos-arent-so-good-for-you-after-all/
I’ve read discussions of what is the best weight for longevity for decades. The great-grandfather of all life extension books, “Life Extension” by Pearson and Shaw, back in 1983 said that studies showing weighing more is healthier didn’t take into consideration that smokers and people with diseases like cancer weigh less so you need to exclude them before making comparisons. A recent critic of the idea that weighing more is healthy is Walter Willet at Harvard. See:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2013/01/09/ask-the-expert-does-being-overweight-really-decrease-mortality-no/
Your second link referenced two studies which I think are worth calling out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21397319
This image from the first link seems like a decent summary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066051/bin/nihms278498f1.jpgReplies: @Tulip
Peace.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Audacious Epigone
They have to be able to find you first, and they have to have working equipment to get ordnance onto you too. That’s going to be just a wee bit difficult when there is no “behind the front lines” where they can get stuff done.
Bit of example of what’s likely if government tries that. Two guys on an airport were playing with fireworks. They tried shooting some kind of sky rockets… using the vent pipes from the underground fuel-storage tanks as the launchers! This ignited the vapor in the pipes, and the flame front flew down into the tank proper followed immediately by BOOM! and a big fire. No more fuel coming from THAT tank, TYVM.
That was an accident. Just how hard do you think it’s going to be to do it deliberately? How does the government bomb you when there’s no fuel for the jets and choppers? No electricity from off-site because the substation transformers got perforated, the cooling/insulating oil ran out and the transformers arced over and melted? Someone back-pressurizes the water main upstream and puts poison in it?
After a couple incidents like that, would there BE any armed forces still under government command? You’d have whole units going AWOL just to be out of the target zone. And there wouldn’t be just two; there would be thousands.
American Civil War II is a guaranteed loser for the American government. Great for China, tho’.
Peace.Replies: @iffen, @Mr. Rational, @dfordoom
In our own time, before our eyes, the second amendment had been tried many times all over the world. The Syrian war is most notable, going on since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_warThe most documented war in history, treasure trove of documents from all sides of the conflict available at your fingertips.One would expect that people who keep droning about second amendment, will take at least slight interest in it, will be at least curious what happens in reality when you try to excercise your second amendment right to fight "the gubmint".
No way. They saw Rambo and Red Dawn 1000 times and learned from them everything they need to know about war. They have nothing more to learn from anyone, least of all from some "rag heads".
"What is Aleppo" sums their attitude best.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcj8yJk87csWhat is Aleppo? Aleppo is what your home town will look like when you try to put in practice your daydreams about "boogaloo".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH6xRh6K7-4This is the reason why you will never try anything at all.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1QZ3CfI6-0Replies: @Talha
Bit of example of what's likely if government tries that. Two guys on an airport were playing with fireworks. They tried shooting some kind of sky rockets... using the vent pipes from the underground fuel-storage tanks as the launchers! This ignited the vapor in the pipes, and the flame front flew down into the tank proper followed immediately by BOOM! and a big fire. No more fuel coming from THAT tank, TYVM.
That was an accident. Just how hard do you think it's going to be to do it deliberately? How does the government bomb you when there's no fuel for the jets and choppers? No electricity from off-site because the substation transformers got perforated, the cooling/insulating oil ran out and the transformers arced over and melted? Someone back-pressurizes the water main upstream and puts poison in it?
After a couple incidents like that, would there BE any armed forces still under government command? You'd have whole units going AWOL just to be out of the target zone. And there wouldn't be just two; there would be thousands.
American Civil War II is a guaranteed loser for the American government. Great for China, tho'.Replies: @Talha, @another anon, @iffen
Why wouldn’t they guard oil refineries and supply lines? They know they can’t fly without fuel?
Not so confident – it really depends on the numbers. Yeah sure, if like 80% of the people rise up; soldiers will be gunning down their aunts and uncles. If you are talking a small but significant insurrection, I’m not sure it’ll win out – especially if it is geographically isolated.
For sure.
Peace.
You go running down the street and a hundred people try to hide you, or you get a hundred people pointing with their finger, "He went thata way!"
My understanding is that the Finns used this kind of thing very effectively against the Russians and Germans. Drop a tree to block a road. Enemy sends in a crew to remove the tree. Snipers kill the crew. Progress grinds to a halt very quickly, as one or two partisans can tie down much larger forces.
I had cause to stop in Pennsylvania last year. Nearby was a gas pipeline ROW, running toward NYC. It's about 260 miles as the crow flies. Putting guards on that pipeline every 100 yards, 17.6 per mile, would require almost 4600 troops if posted individually. Multiply by 3 for rotations. The US army only has about 472000 on active duty; they could actively guard about 30 pipeline segments of 260 miles each, and do NOTHING else.3% would be more than enough if they hit the enemy's centers of power. There have already been trial runs at this, which almost worked. Even 1% is 3.3 million. Can you imagine 3.3 million lone wolves, going after the sustenance of the feral government? You can't watch that many people. You can't control them. Maybe you can catch them after they act, but if you blow away everyone within 500 feet of them after they've melted back into their normal lives you are going to have a LOT more than just 1% furious with you. Those furious people will do things like go to government offices and hose them down with bullets and gasoline bombs. Without its armies of footsoldiers, the feral government is impotent.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman
It's not just a ludicrous idea today. It's been a ludicrous idea for a very long time.Yep. And in the US any attempt at an armed insurrection would be carried out by a microscopically small minority, maybe one-tenth of one percent at the very most.
What the Civil War 2.0 enthusiasts and the gun nuts will not accept is that their ideas enjoy zero mass support. The overwhelming majority will not only fail to support them, the overwhelming majority will back the government 100%.
Bit of example of what's likely if government tries that. Two guys on an airport were playing with fireworks. They tried shooting some kind of sky rockets... using the vent pipes from the underground fuel-storage tanks as the launchers! This ignited the vapor in the pipes, and the flame front flew down into the tank proper followed immediately by BOOM! and a big fire. No more fuel coming from THAT tank, TYVM.
That was an accident. Just how hard do you think it's going to be to do it deliberately? How does the government bomb you when there's no fuel for the jets and choppers? No electricity from off-site because the substation transformers got perforated, the cooling/insulating oil ran out and the transformers arced over and melted? Someone back-pressurizes the water main upstream and puts poison in it?
After a couple incidents like that, would there BE any armed forces still under government command? You'd have whole units going AWOL just to be out of the target zone. And there wouldn't be just two; there would be thousands.
American Civil War II is a guaranteed loser for the American government. Great for China, tho'.Replies: @Talha, @another anon, @iffen
All these things were tried by Syrian rebels.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/khmeimim-vs-the-swarm/
Hadn’t made much difference to the final outcome.
As I said previously, this attitude is most infuriating thing about American armchair Rambos.
In our own time, before our eyes, the second amendment had been tried many times all over the world. The Syrian war is most notable, going on since 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
The most documented war in history, treasure trove of documents from all sides of the conflict available at your fingertips.
One would expect that people who keep droning about second amendment, will take at least slight interest in it, will be at least curious what happens in reality when you try to excercise your second amendment right to fight “the gubmint”.
No way. They saw Rambo and Red Dawn 1000 times and learned from them everything they need to know about war. They have nothing more to learn from anyone, least of all from some “rag heads”.
“What is Aleppo” sums their attitude best.
What is Aleppo? Aleppo is what your home town will look like when you try to put in practice your daydreams about “boogaloo”.
This is the reason why you will never try anything at all.
Peace.
A Chinese brother who is very much into guns (takes his kids shooting every weekend or so) was telling me about a story he heard about a Muslim hijab-wearing lady that wanted to buy a gun for her husband as a gift (I think she was either Indian or Pakistani). So she did a bunch of research and learned about guns to be more educated about the subject and when it was time to actually go to a gun shop and purchase the weapon, she was a bit apprehensive. She didn't know how she was going to be treated when they saw she was a Muslim woman, there were stereotypes about American gun enthusiasts, etc. Anyway, so she goes in and starts looking around and the staff is a bit stand-offish, but once she asked for help and started talking to them and it was clear she was interested in the subject and knew what she was talking about, they totally hit it off and the guys were super helpful and very enthusiastic. As the brother concluded; the "Brotherhood of the Gun" traverses these fault lines.
Peace.
*I'm actually in the market for a reliable handgun, and this Turkish model (not too many people know about it) seems to have a lot of great reviews. Apparently some of the guns coming out of Turkey are great items one can find - sometimes half the price of the better known ones while suffering very little loss in quality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUJDnlJWuoReplies: @iffen
the political divide is reflective of a difference in a culture between gun-owners and those that don’t own them. It really is a difference.
Yes, but what I meant was that one has to support one’s side even if you might hold a slightly different opinion. I will use myself as an example. I have owned guns in the past (I don’t have any right now because I’m pretty sure my wife would end up shooting me if I had one) and I’m sure that I will own guns in the future. I think that it’s beyond obvious that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to possess a firearm. That said, I don’t really see the need for allowing semi-automatic weapons. The defense of liberty is a nonsensical joke. If they let us have grenade launchers and tanks, that would be a different question. But, the important point is that the gun rights defenders are exactly correct and these little steps are just a slippery slope to a complete ban of firearms.
Another example is the abortion question. I personally don’t have a problem with it, but “my side” catches hell for their opposition and I have to go with them on principle.
https://www.yemenextra.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/441.jpgThe scopes, though!!!
https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/9896898ab/37282d9a/wedding-ceremony-commemorates-a-revolt-against-houthis-ancestors-sanaa-yemen-shutterstock-editorial-9896898ab.jpgPeace.
It is apparent that you know very little about the current state of American firearms laws.
Semi-automatic weapons were available at the time of the American revolution and as such come within the purview of the Second Amendment.
The "National Firearms Act" of 1934 established a "registration" (actually a "tax") scheme to "get around" the Second Amendment on certain classes of weapons--machine guns, short-barreled rifles, "any other weapon" (such as cane guns) and silencers.
Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades, artillery and other weapons are legal under U. S. law with the proper "permits". It can be arduous and time-consuming to obtain such "permits" but it is legal under U. S. law.
Yes, there are civilians that own all sorts of such weapons.Replies: @iffen
In our own time, before our eyes, the second amendment had been tried many times all over the world. The Syrian war is most notable, going on since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_warThe most documented war in history, treasure trove of documents from all sides of the conflict available at your fingertips.One would expect that people who keep droning about second amendment, will take at least slight interest in it, will be at least curious what happens in reality when you try to excercise your second amendment right to fight "the gubmint".
No way. They saw Rambo and Red Dawn 1000 times and learned from them everything they need to know about war. They have nothing more to learn from anyone, least of all from some "rag heads".
"What is Aleppo" sums their attitude best.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcj8yJk87csWhat is Aleppo? Aleppo is what your home town will look like when you try to put in practice your daydreams about "boogaloo".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH6xRh6K7-4This is the reason why you will never try anything at all.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1QZ3CfI6-0Replies: @Talha
Not captured by the drone at that level are the human bodies being ripped apart by starving dogs and whose relatives are too afraid to go fetch them because of the snipers that have a shoot-anything-that-moves-in-this-sector policy.
Peace.
Peace.Replies: @iffen, @Mr. Rational, @dfordoom
The test hasn’t changed for time immemorial.
You go running down the street and a hundred people try to hide you, or you get a hundred people pointing with their finger, “He went thata way!”
I have seen pictures of wedding guests in Yemen where the guy has an RPG. It’s common for men to strap on their best weapons as part of their dressing up for the event. That’s also a gun culture, and a knife culture:
The scopes, though!!!
Peace.
Bit of example of what's likely if government tries that. Two guys on an airport were playing with fireworks. They tried shooting some kind of sky rockets... using the vent pipes from the underground fuel-storage tanks as the launchers! This ignited the vapor in the pipes, and the flame front flew down into the tank proper followed immediately by BOOM! and a big fire. No more fuel coming from THAT tank, TYVM.
That was an accident. Just how hard do you think it's going to be to do it deliberately? How does the government bomb you when there's no fuel for the jets and choppers? No electricity from off-site because the substation transformers got perforated, the cooling/insulating oil ran out and the transformers arced over and melted? Someone back-pressurizes the water main upstream and puts poison in it?
After a couple incidents like that, would there BE any armed forces still under government command? You'd have whole units going AWOL just to be out of the target zone. And there wouldn't be just two; there would be thousands.
American Civil War II is a guaranteed loser for the American government. Great for China, tho'.Replies: @Talha, @another anon, @iffen
You sure seem to come up with a lot of irrational stuff for being Mr. Rational.
Peace.Replies: @iffen, @Mr. Rational, @dfordoom
Man, did you ever just prove that you have never actually LIVED in America. Your body might be here, but mentally you’re way off somewhere else. This place is HUGE. Oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines are long, vulnerable and nigh-impossible to guard. If you DID try to put guards out, they’d become the targets. Anyone placed on guard duty would walk off and go AWOL for their own safety.
My understanding is that the Finns used this kind of thing very effectively against the Russians and Germans. Drop a tree to block a road. Enemy sends in a crew to remove the tree. Snipers kill the crew. Progress grinds to a halt very quickly, as one or two partisans can tie down much larger forces.
I had cause to stop in Pennsylvania last year. Nearby was a gas pipeline ROW, running toward NYC. It’s about 260 miles as the crow flies. Putting guards on that pipeline every 100 yards, 17.6 per mile, would require almost 4600 troops if posted individually. Multiply by 3 for rotations. The US army only has about 472000 on active duty; they could actively guard about 30 pipeline segments of 260 miles each, and do NOTHING else.
3% would be more than enough if they hit the enemy’s centers of power. There have already been trial runs at this, which almost worked. Even 1% is 3.3 million. Can you imagine 3.3 million lone wolves, going after the sustenance of the feral government? You can’t watch that many people. You can’t control them. Maybe you can catch them after they act, but if you blow away everyone within 500 feet of them after they’ve melted back into their normal lives you are going to have a LOT more than just 1% furious with you. Those furious people will do things like go to government offices and hose them down with bullets and gasoline bombs. Without its armies of footsoldiers, the feral government is impotent.
1) If the armed insurrection fails you wind up dead, or if you survive you get to spend the rest of your life at Guantanamo Bay. How many people are seriously going to risk that?
2) For that reason you're not going to get 3.3 million. You might get a couple of hundred thousand keyboard warriors who will talk about doing something. Maybe one in ten will actually do so (and that's a very generous estimate). Once the shooting starts the vast majority will surrender immediately. That's what happens when an undisciplined leaderless rabble goes up against an actual army.
3) Of those keyboard warriors mentioned above it's a reasonable assumption that a substantial number are Feds. Of those who might actually take up arms a very substantial number will be Feds. The Feds are going to know all your plans. You'll be betrayed before you even start.Replies: @Mr. Rational
My understanding is that the Finns used this kind of thing very effectively against the Russians and Germans. Drop a tree to block a road. Enemy sends in a crew to remove the tree. Snipers kill the crew. Progress grinds to a halt very quickly, as one or two partisans can tie down much larger forces.
I had cause to stop in Pennsylvania last year. Nearby was a gas pipeline ROW, running toward NYC. It's about 260 miles as the crow flies. Putting guards on that pipeline every 100 yards, 17.6 per mile, would require almost 4600 troops if posted individually. Multiply by 3 for rotations. The US army only has about 472000 on active duty; they could actively guard about 30 pipeline segments of 260 miles each, and do NOTHING else.3% would be more than enough if they hit the enemy's centers of power. There have already been trial runs at this, which almost worked. Even 1% is 3.3 million. Can you imagine 3.3 million lone wolves, going after the sustenance of the feral government? You can't watch that many people. You can't control them. Maybe you can catch them after they act, but if you blow away everyone within 500 feet of them after they've melted back into their normal lives you are going to have a LOT more than just 1% furious with you. Those furious people will do things like go to government offices and hose them down with bullets and gasoline bombs. Without its armies of footsoldiers, the feral government is impotent.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman
Mr. Rational, buy yourself some huge fireworks and go to your nearest major airport and try to get under the chain link fence with your fireworks and let us know what happens.
I have no reason to do anything at said airport. It has not been weaponized against me.
Peace.Replies: @dfordoom
The Brits would only get involved if their masters in Washington gave them the OK. Independent British foreign policy ended with the Suez fiasco in 1956.
And Australians know what happens when you rely on the British. One word – Singapore.
There’s a term that accurately describes nations that rely on Great and Powerful friends for their defence. They’re called vassal states. Australia is a US vassal state. If we’re smart we’ll work on becoming a Chinese vassal state. If you’re going to be a vassal you might as well choose to be the vassal of a sane non-aggressive friendly nation like China rather than treacherous weasels like the British or a totally insane hyper-aggressive rogue state like the US.
Australia and China have common interests. Australia and Britain have no interests in common. Australia and the US have no interests in common. Australia has more to fear from the United States than from China.
This isn't the colonial days where the only minorities are Negro slaves. Murica is only 56% White and dropping off sharply once the Boomers die-off. Of the Whites left, enough of them are LBGT degenerates, coomers, feminists, etc. Point is, the LARPers here wouldn't have any ties of heritage with the elites and their enforcers.
All successful and non-shithole revolutions depend on elite support. The LARPers have none. Trump and others in the GOP would grant the LARPers.
Plenty successful revolutions depend on foreign support. The LARPers would either have none or be used as pawns to keep the American empire weakened.
Peace.Replies: @iffen, @Mr. Rational, @dfordoom
Because the idea that a handful of guys with AR-15s can take down the government is based on immense amounts of wishful thinking.
It’s not just a ludicrous idea today. It’s been a ludicrous idea for a very long time.
Yep. And in the US any attempt at an armed insurrection would be carried out by a microscopically small minority, maybe one-tenth of one percent at the very most.
What the Civil War 2.0 enthusiasts and the gun nuts will not accept is that their ideas enjoy zero mass support. The overwhelming majority will not only fail to support them, the overwhelming majority will back the government 100%.
I doubt that the risks are any greater today but we perceive those risks as being much greater. Mostly we're wrong. Mostly the things we worry about really are not worth worrying about.
Of course media hysteria has been largely responsible. I also wonder if people are less numerate today. If you tell people that something involves a 1 in 100 risk and something else involves a 1 in 100,000 risk they don't seem to be able to appreciate the magnitude of the difference. And the media deliberately distorts our understanding of statistics.Replies: @Rosie, @Audacious Epigone
Social media hysteria. Every neighborhood has a facebook group now, so even though neighbors don’t actually do anything together, they will share a video of a couple of unsupervised kids concern trolling about where the parents are, etc. No community, more call out. Sad.
The more I think about it the better being an atomised alienated individual sounds!
OMG, am I turning libertarian? The horror, the horror.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
See here.
Peace.Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Audacious Epigone
In Mexico, otoh…
https://www.unz.com/isteve/mass-killings/#comment-2030090
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qepeCVE9nOoReplies: @Intelligent Dasein
AE, see my long-ago post on the stages of statehood and criminality.
https://www.unz.com/isteve/mass-killings/#comment-2030090
My understanding is that the Finns used this kind of thing very effectively against the Russians and Germans. Drop a tree to block a road. Enemy sends in a crew to remove the tree. Snipers kill the crew. Progress grinds to a halt very quickly, as one or two partisans can tie down much larger forces.
I had cause to stop in Pennsylvania last year. Nearby was a gas pipeline ROW, running toward NYC. It's about 260 miles as the crow flies. Putting guards on that pipeline every 100 yards, 17.6 per mile, would require almost 4600 troops if posted individually. Multiply by 3 for rotations. The US army only has about 472000 on active duty; they could actively guard about 30 pipeline segments of 260 miles each, and do NOTHING else.3% would be more than enough if they hit the enemy's centers of power. There have already been trial runs at this, which almost worked. Even 1% is 3.3 million. Can you imagine 3.3 million lone wolves, going after the sustenance of the feral government? You can't watch that many people. You can't control them. Maybe you can catch them after they act, but if you blow away everyone within 500 feet of them after they've melted back into their normal lives you are going to have a LOT more than just 1% furious with you. Those furious people will do things like go to government offices and hose them down with bullets and gasoline bombs. Without its armies of footsoldiers, the feral government is impotent.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman
Several things to consider.
1) If the armed insurrection fails you wind up dead, or if you survive you get to spend the rest of your life at Guantanamo Bay. How many people are seriously going to risk that?
2) For that reason you’re not going to get 3.3 million. You might get a couple of hundred thousand keyboard warriors who will talk about doing something. Maybe one in ten will actually do so (and that’s a very generous estimate). Once the shooting starts the vast majority will surrender immediately. That’s what happens when an undisciplined leaderless rabble goes up against an actual army.
3) Of those keyboard warriors mentioned above it’s a reasonable assumption that a substantial number are Feds. Of those who might actually take up arms a very substantial number will be Feds. The Feds are going to know all your plans. You’ll be betrayed before you even start.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.htmlIf there's enough chaos to hide in, 3.3 million patriot partisans will be a drastic underestimate... and chaos is just begging to happen.IDGAF. I'm too old to be an active part of squat, but I can see the truth and I can (for now) speak about it. The fedpoasters can F off.Replies: @another anon
Now see that’s one of the reasons I’m very unenthusiastic about living in a close-knit community. Even in our currently not very close-knit communities people just naturally want to tell other people how to live, how to raise their kids, what they should eat, etc.
The more I think about it the better being an atomised alienated individual sounds!
OMG, am I turning libertarian? The horror, the horror.
The more I think about it the better being an atomised alienated individual sounds!
OMG, am I turning libertarian? The horror, the horror.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Living the “atomized” lifestyle vs. community lifestyle has nothing to do with whether one is a Libertarian or not.
To be honest it's difficult to imagine a close-knit community that is not going to be based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
Are libertarians OK with social coercion? You know, where you don't get arrested by the government for breaking the rules, you just have your life turned into a living Hell by the other members of the community until you conform?
By the way, I'm not trying to bait you (I know that sometimes I do try to bait libertarians but in this case I'm not doing that). I'm genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.Replies: @iffen, @Achmed E. Newman, @Aldon
My understanding is that the Finns used this kind of thing very effectively against the Russians and Germans. Drop a tree to block a road. Enemy sends in a crew to remove the tree. Snipers kill the crew. Progress grinds to a halt very quickly, as one or two partisans can tie down much larger forces.
I had cause to stop in Pennsylvania last year. Nearby was a gas pipeline ROW, running toward NYC. It's about 260 miles as the crow flies. Putting guards on that pipeline every 100 yards, 17.6 per mile, would require almost 4600 troops if posted individually. Multiply by 3 for rotations. The US army only has about 472000 on active duty; they could actively guard about 30 pipeline segments of 260 miles each, and do NOTHING else.3% would be more than enough if they hit the enemy's centers of power. There have already been trial runs at this, which almost worked. Even 1% is 3.3 million. Can you imagine 3.3 million lone wolves, going after the sustenance of the feral government? You can't watch that many people. You can't control them. Maybe you can catch them after they act, but if you blow away everyone within 500 feet of them after they've melted back into their normal lives you are going to have a LOT more than just 1% furious with you. Those furious people will do things like go to government offices and hose them down with bullets and gasoline bombs. Without its armies of footsoldiers, the feral government is impotent.Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom, @Achmed E. Newman
One lone not-particularly-sharp rogue (ex-?)cop seriously messed with the whole police force of the City of Los Angeles for about 4 days a few years back. Dorner or something was his name. That’s ONE GUY. He got them flustered enough to start shooting at some innocent women in a pick-up track that didn’t match his description one bit. Does anyone here remember this story? Some of these people replying to you, Mr. Rational, really don’t get it.
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/05/a-few-extra-kilos-arent-so-good-for-you-after-all/
I've read discussions of what is the best weight for longevity for decades. The great-grandfather of all life extension books, "Life Extension" by Pearson and Shaw, back in 1983 said that studies showing weighing more is healthier didn't take into consideration that smokers and people with diseases like cancer weigh less so you need to exclude them before making comparisons. A recent critic of the idea that weighing more is healthy is Walter Willet at Harvard. See:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2013/01/09/ask-the-expert-does-being-overweight-really-decrease-mortality-no/Replies: @res
Thanks!
Your second link referenced two studies which I think are worth calling out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21397319
This image from the first link seems like a decent summary.
I’m talking about close-knit communities in which everyone tells everyone else how to live. Which is pretty much all traditional societies. I’m talking about communities united by religion or shared social/moral values. I don’t see how such communities could be compatible with libertarianism since they’re based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
To be honest it’s difficult to imagine a close-knit community that is not going to be based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
Are libertarians OK with social coercion? You know, where you don’t get arrested by the government for breaking the rules, you just have your life turned into a living Hell by the other members of the community until you conform?
By the way, I’m not trying to bait you (I know that sometimes I do try to bait libertarians but in this case I’m not doing that). I’m genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.
Your 3rd paragraph said it pretty well, IMO. All that social coercion that you mention is not MANDATORY. Sure, you'd have been an outcast if you were the only dope smoker in old Muskogee, Oklahoma, "where even squares can have a ball". That doesn't mean you COULDN'T be an outcast.
It's a legal matter, D. BTW, that does not at all mean someone who is NOT an outcast, and pretty much a conformist to the ways of a close-knit community cannot be a Libertarian. Can there not be communities of Libertarians? Sure, there can. The atomization bit has nothing to do with whether one wants governments to stay out of people's lives.
In fact, there can be much better close-knit communities, because these close-knit people can develop their close-knit kids' (sorry, haha!) school curriculum themselves, for THEIR needs, not people way across the state from Muskogee. They can even decide, gasp, they they want only white people living there, squares at that. Do you know that the destruction by the "Civil Rites" of the right to free association that our Founders understood was inherently un-Libertarian, D? Talk to Barry AuH20 about it sometime... you know, through one of those old ladies in the trailers with those "Palm Reading - 5 dollar" signs ;-}
Well, OK, now that the song is in my head, here's a young "square" Merle Haggard. Please note: He doesn't advocate for LAWS prohibiting making a party out of lovin, or making pitchin' woo mandatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68cbjlLFl4UReplies: @dfordoom
To be honest it's difficult to imagine a close-knit community that is not going to be based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
Are libertarians OK with social coercion? You know, where you don't get arrested by the government for breaking the rules, you just have your life turned into a living Hell by the other members of the community until you conform?
By the way, I'm not trying to bait you (I know that sometimes I do try to bait libertarians but in this case I'm not doing that). I'm genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.Replies: @iffen, @Achmed E. Newman, @Aldon
I’m genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.
Libertarians are self-sufficient islands. Their minds cannot comprehend continent size problems. Needless to say they never have continent size solutions.
Allies against the Borg should never, under any circumstances, include or depend upon: neo-Nazis, communists, WNs, or libertarians.
To be honest it's difficult to imagine a close-knit community that is not going to be based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
Are libertarians OK with social coercion? You know, where you don't get arrested by the government for breaking the rules, you just have your life turned into a living Hell by the other members of the community until you conform?
By the way, I'm not trying to bait you (I know that sometimes I do try to bait libertarians but in this case I'm not doing that). I'm genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.Replies: @iffen, @Achmed E. Newman, @Aldon
Thank you for not baiting me, DForDoom, first of all! Sure, the answer is pretty simple.
Your 3rd paragraph said it pretty well, IMO. All that social coercion that you mention is not MANDATORY. Sure, you’d have been an outcast if you were the only dope smoker in old Muskogee, Oklahoma, “where even squares can have a ball”. That doesn’t mean you COULDN’T be an outcast.
It’s a legal matter, D. BTW, that does not at all mean someone who is NOT an outcast, and pretty much a conformist to the ways of a close-knit community cannot be a Libertarian. Can there not be communities of Libertarians? Sure, there can. The atomization bit has nothing to do with whether one wants governments to stay out of people’s lives.
In fact, there can be much better close-knit communities, because these close-knit people can develop their close-knit kids’ (sorry, haha!) school curriculum themselves, for THEIR needs, not people way across the state from Muskogee. They can even decide, gasp, they they want only white people living there, squares at that. Do you know that the destruction by the “Civil Rites” of the right to free association that our Founders understood was inherently un-Libertarian, D? Talk to Barry AuH20 about it sometime… you know, through one of those old ladies in the trailers with those “Palm Reading – 5 dollar” signs ;-}
Well, OK, now that the song is in my head, here’s a young “square” Merle Haggard. Please note: He doesn’t advocate for LAWS prohibiting making a party out of lovin, or making pitchin’ woo mandatory.
Churches used to impose extreme limitations on liberty. They still would but fortunately they no longer have sufficient power to do so. There are Christians right here on UR who would love to go Full Handmaid's Tale on women if they had the power to do so.
Community groups restrict our liberties.
The threat to liberty does not come solely (or even primarily) from the evil gubmint.Doesn't that restrict the liberties of non-white people?But surely social coercion is mandatory? If you're told, "we don't want your type living here" or if you're made aware that your life will be made Hell unless you obey their petty arbitrary rules (or if you're told you're the wrong colour to live in that town) then surely you're being subjected to mandatory restrictions on your liberty? Restrictions that are likely to be more sweeping than anything government can come up with.
It seems to me that once you accept the principle that other people have the right to tell you how to live then you've abandoned libertarianism.
That's why so many people prefer urban life to rural life. Whatever its other drawbacks urban life offers a lot more genuine liberty. If you want liberty you need a certain degree of anonymity. If you live somewhere where everyone knows your name then chances are you'll have very little liberty.Replies: @Znzn, @Audacious Epigone, @Rosie
Iffen:
It is apparent that you know very little about the current state of American firearms laws.
Semi-automatic weapons were available at the time of the American revolution and as such come within the purview of the Second Amendment.
The “National Firearms Act” of 1934 established a “registration” (actually a “tax”) scheme to “get around” the Second Amendment on certain classes of weapons–machine guns, short-barreled rifles, “any other weapon” (such as cane guns) and silencers.
Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades, artillery and other weapons are legal under U. S. law with the proper “permits”. It can be arduous and time-consuming to obtain such “permits” but it is legal under U. S. law.
Yes, there are civilians that own all sorts of such weapons.
This is true, but the arcana of gun laws are not relevant to "the big picture."
It is apparent that you know very little about the current state of American firearms laws.
Semi-automatic weapons were available at the time of the American revolution and as such come within the purview of the Second Amendment.
The "National Firearms Act" of 1934 established a "registration" (actually a "tax") scheme to "get around" the Second Amendment on certain classes of weapons--machine guns, short-barreled rifles, "any other weapon" (such as cane guns) and silencers.
Machine guns, grenade launchers and grenades, artillery and other weapons are legal under U. S. law with the proper "permits". It can be arduous and time-consuming to obtain such "permits" but it is legal under U. S. law.
Yes, there are civilians that own all sorts of such weapons.Replies: @iffen
It is apparent that you know very little about the current state of American firearms laws.
This is true, but the arcana of gun laws are not relevant to “the big picture.”
My nearest active airport (which does handle jet traffic, TYVM) barely has chain-link fence around it. You could cut through it and walk from one end of the major concrete runway to the other with nothing else in your way; likely nobody would notice you. There is a second runway but I’m not sure if it’s concrete or sod; it does have VASI lights, tho’.
I have no reason to do anything at said airport. It has not been weaponized against me.
1) If the armed insurrection fails you wind up dead, or if you survive you get to spend the rest of your life at Guantanamo Bay. How many people are seriously going to risk that?
2) For that reason you're not going to get 3.3 million. You might get a couple of hundred thousand keyboard warriors who will talk about doing something. Maybe one in ten will actually do so (and that's a very generous estimate). Once the shooting starts the vast majority will surrender immediately. That's what happens when an undisciplined leaderless rabble goes up against an actual army.
3) Of those keyboard warriors mentioned above it's a reasonable assumption that a substantial number are Feds. Of those who might actually take up arms a very substantial number will be Feds. The Feds are going to know all your plans. You'll be betrayed before you even start.Replies: @Mr. Rational
In real life, exactly ZERO of the attackers on the Metcalf transformer station have been so much as identified. They were not part of a mass movement and the government had massive resources to find and prosecute them, but that has not happened.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.html
If there’s enough chaos to hide in, 3.3 million patriot partisans will be a drastic underestimate… and chaos is just begging to happen.
IDGAF. I’m too old to be an active part of squat, but I can see the truth and I can (for now) speak about it. The fedpoasters can F off.
Meanwhile, in the real life, Syrian government forces are moving on Idlib.https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1223171773329338369The last rebel held territory is bombed 24/7, hundreds of thousands are fleeing. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1222941324552429571"I have nothing in common with some ragheads" you will say, and you will be right.
The rebels of Syria have about 100x better equipment than you, and about 1000x more guts.
They are actually walking the second amendment walk.https://twitter.com/Abdurahmanhrk/status/1222637590412742658You are not like them.http://thefirearmsforum.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/05/124164_0e43a836b07f6e0396ca4bed055313ab.jpg
https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.htmlIf there's enough chaos to hide in, 3.3 million patriot partisans will be a drastic underestimate... and chaos is just begging to happen.IDGAF. I'm too old to be an active part of squat, but I can see the truth and I can (for now) speak about it. The fedpoasters can F off.Replies: @another anon
Shooting a transformer, how brave. How revolutionary.
Meanwhile, in the real life, Syrian government forces are moving on Idlib.
https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1223171773329338369
The last rebel held territory is bombed 24/7, hundreds of thousands are fleeing.
“I have nothing in common with some ragheads” you will say, and you will be right.
The rebels of Syria have about 100x better equipment than you, and about 1000x more guts.
They are actually walking the second amendment walk.
You are not like them.
Your second link referenced two studies which I think are worth calling out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21397319
This image from the first link seems like a decent summary.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066051/bin/nihms278498f1.jpgReplies: @Tulip
Well its clear from the evidence that “healthy subjects who never smoked” better take up smoking if they find themselves expanding in the waist-line.
Seriously, hip-to-waist ratio is a much better measure.
Whether or not what you said (I am assuming you were joking) is true in reality is a bit more interesting question. I doubt it, but would like to see the numbers.Agreed, but the data is much less available and has been studied less. Pretty much any health data includes height and weight allowing calculation of BMI.
The big issue I have with those graphics is they seem to have normalized the non/smoking groups separately. I am pretty sure that at equivalent normal BMI the smokers are at significantly higher risk.
Whether or not what you said (I am assuming you were joking) is true in reality is a bit more interesting question. I doubt it, but would like to see the numbers.
Agreed, but the data is much less available and has been studied less. Pretty much any health data includes height and weight allowing calculation of BMI.
Your 3rd paragraph said it pretty well, IMO. All that social coercion that you mention is not MANDATORY. Sure, you'd have been an outcast if you were the only dope smoker in old Muskogee, Oklahoma, "where even squares can have a ball". That doesn't mean you COULDN'T be an outcast.
It's a legal matter, D. BTW, that does not at all mean someone who is NOT an outcast, and pretty much a conformist to the ways of a close-knit community cannot be a Libertarian. Can there not be communities of Libertarians? Sure, there can. The atomization bit has nothing to do with whether one wants governments to stay out of people's lives.
In fact, there can be much better close-knit communities, because these close-knit people can develop their close-knit kids' (sorry, haha!) school curriculum themselves, for THEIR needs, not people way across the state from Muskogee. They can even decide, gasp, they they want only white people living there, squares at that. Do you know that the destruction by the "Civil Rites" of the right to free association that our Founders understood was inherently un-Libertarian, D? Talk to Barry AuH20 about it sometime... you know, through one of those old ladies in the trailers with those "Palm Reading - 5 dollar" signs ;-}
Well, OK, now that the song is in my head, here's a young "square" Merle Haggard. Please note: He doesn't advocate for LAWS prohibiting making a party out of lovin, or making pitchin' woo mandatory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68cbjlLFl4UReplies: @dfordoom
That’s my issue with libertarianism. The obsession with the government as the threat to liberty. There are in fact many institutions that seek to limit our liberties. Private corporations limit the right to freedom of speech every single day (and there is zero difference between a government infringing freedom of speech and a private corporation doing it). HR departments impose limitations on liberty (which are often much more draconian than anything a government would contemplate).
Churches used to impose extreme limitations on liberty. They still would but fortunately they no longer have sufficient power to do so. There are Christians right here on UR who would love to go Full Handmaid’s Tale on women if they had the power to do so.
Community groups restrict our liberties.
The threat to liberty does not come solely (or even primarily) from the evil gubmint.
Doesn’t that restrict the liberties of non-white people?
But surely social coercion is mandatory? If you’re told, “we don’t want your type living here” or if you’re made aware that your life will be made Hell unless you obey their petty arbitrary rules (or if you’re told you’re the wrong colour to live in that town) then surely you’re being subjected to mandatory restrictions on your liberty? Restrictions that are likely to be more sweeping than anything government can come up with.
It seems to me that once you accept the principle that other people have the right to tell you how to live then you’ve abandoned libertarianism.
That’s why so many people prefer urban life to rural life. Whatever its other drawbacks urban life offers a lot more genuine liberty. If you want liberty you need a certain degree of anonymity. If you live somewhere where everyone knows your name then chances are you’ll have very little liberty.
,Replies: @Aldon, @dfordoom
Re: no difference between private and government restrictions on free speech, I respectfully disagree--the former is a greater threat than the latter. There are legal protections to combat the latter!Replies: @dfordoom
Churches used to impose extreme limitations on liberty. They still would but fortunately they no longer have sufficient power to do so. There are Christians right here on UR who would love to go Full Handmaid's Tale on women if they had the power to do so.
Community groups restrict our liberties.
The threat to liberty does not come solely (or even primarily) from the evil gubmint.Doesn't that restrict the liberties of non-white people?But surely social coercion is mandatory? If you're told, "we don't want your type living here" or if you're made aware that your life will be made Hell unless you obey their petty arbitrary rules (or if you're told you're the wrong colour to live in that town) then surely you're being subjected to mandatory restrictions on your liberty? Restrictions that are likely to be more sweeping than anything government can come up with.
It seems to me that once you accept the principle that other people have the right to tell you how to live then you've abandoned libertarianism.
That's why so many people prefer urban life to rural life. Whatever its other drawbacks urban life offers a lot more genuine liberty. If you want liberty you need a certain degree of anonymity. If you live somewhere where everyone knows your name then chances are you'll have very little liberty.Replies: @Znzn, @Audacious Epigone, @Rosie
Those who spend an inordinate amount of time here are mostly autists anyway so not wanting to live in a close knit community where their behavior can be kept in line is a given.
,
The problem with people who want to keep other people's behaviour in line is that they usually don't know where to stop. That's how we got Political Correctness.
The mentality that drives the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police has always been with us in one form or another. It used to be the Christians. Now it's the LGBT mob and the feminists. But the psychology is still the same.
Churches used to impose extreme limitations on liberty. They still would but fortunately they no longer have sufficient power to do so. There are Christians right here on UR who would love to go Full Handmaid's Tale on women if they had the power to do so.
Community groups restrict our liberties.
The threat to liberty does not come solely (or even primarily) from the evil gubmint.Doesn't that restrict the liberties of non-white people?But surely social coercion is mandatory? If you're told, "we don't want your type living here" or if you're made aware that your life will be made Hell unless you obey their petty arbitrary rules (or if you're told you're the wrong colour to live in that town) then surely you're being subjected to mandatory restrictions on your liberty? Restrictions that are likely to be more sweeping than anything government can come up with.
It seems to me that once you accept the principle that other people have the right to tell you how to live then you've abandoned libertarianism.
That's why so many people prefer urban life to rural life. Whatever its other drawbacks urban life offers a lot more genuine liberty. If you want liberty you need a certain degree of anonymity. If you live somewhere where everyone knows your name then chances are you'll have very little liberty.Replies: @Znzn, @Audacious Epigone, @Rosie
This configuration doesn’t work without a sacrosanct understanding of private property, and the right of property owners to set rules for the property they own.
Re: no difference between private and government restrictions on free speech, I respectfully disagree–the former is a greater threat than the latter. There are legal protections to combat the latter!
Churches used to impose extreme limitations on liberty. They still would but fortunately they no longer have sufficient power to do so. There are Christians right here on UR who would love to go Full Handmaid's Tale on women if they had the power to do so.
Community groups restrict our liberties.
The threat to liberty does not come solely (or even primarily) from the evil gubmint.Doesn't that restrict the liberties of non-white people?But surely social coercion is mandatory? If you're told, "we don't want your type living here" or if you're made aware that your life will be made Hell unless you obey their petty arbitrary rules (or if you're told you're the wrong colour to live in that town) then surely you're being subjected to mandatory restrictions on your liberty? Restrictions that are likely to be more sweeping than anything government can come up with.
It seems to me that once you accept the principle that other people have the right to tell you how to live then you've abandoned libertarianism.
That's why so many people prefer urban life to rural life. Whatever its other drawbacks urban life offers a lot more genuine liberty. If you want liberty you need a certain degree of anonymity. If you live somewhere where everyone knows your name then chances are you'll have very little liberty.Replies: @Znzn, @Audacious Epigone, @Rosie
Yes. Sometimes it’s a question of our liberty or theirs. In which case, we should take our own side.
Indeed, having borders at all restricts the liberty of non-White people to live with White people, which they seem to believe is not only a a liberty interest, but an absolute right.
Once you go that way, that slippery slope will take you straight down to full-blown open-borders lunacy.
Can you imagine California deciding that California doesn't want whites in California any longer? Or that California doesn't want Christians? Or that gun owners are no longer welcome in California?
More to the point, can you imagine the megacorporations deciding that Christians, gun owners and Republicans will no longer be given jobs?
Freedom of association can be a fine thing if you have the numbers and if you have the power. Once you no longer have the numbers or the power it could be very unpleasant.Replies: @Rosie
Enthusiasts for freedom of association tend to assume that it will be white heterosexual gun-loving God-fearing Republicans who’ll be the ones doing the excluding. That they’ll be the ones saying, “We don’t want your kind in our community.” That’s a dangerous assumption. The white heterosexual gun-loving God-fearing Republicans might be the ones getting excluded.
Can you imagine California deciding that California doesn’t want whites in California any longer? Or that California doesn’t want Christians? Or that gun owners are no longer welcome in California?
More to the point, can you imagine the megacorporations deciding that Christians, gun owners and Republicans will no longer be given jobs?
Freedom of association can be a fine thing if you have the numbers and if you have the power. Once you no longer have the numbers or the power it could be very unpleasant.
Re: no difference between private and government restrictions on free speech, I respectfully disagree--the former is a greater threat than the latter. There are legal protections to combat the latter!Replies: @dfordoom
Which can be dangerous if a small group of property owners own just about everything.
Yes, I think you’re right. Also censorship by government has to be done more or less openly. The difficulty in fighting censorship by private corporations is that often you can’t even get them to admit that they’re doing it.
Can you imagine California deciding that California doesn't want whites in California any longer? Or that California doesn't want Christians? Or that gun owners are no longer welcome in California?
More to the point, can you imagine the megacorporations deciding that Christians, gun owners and Republicans will no longer be given jobs?
Freedom of association can be a fine thing if you have the numbers and if you have the power. Once you no longer have the numbers or the power it could be very unpleasant.Replies: @Rosie
It wouldn’t make any difference to us. Whites don’t want to live there anyway.
Which is why you don’t give up your power and demographic dominance. White South Africans did so, thinking they would be protected by the rule of law, and look how it’s worked out for them.
Many in the UMC and above do.Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie
In any case demographic dominance is meaningless. It's ideological dominance that matters. Whites in the US still have overwhelming demographic dominance (unless you buy into the fantasy that speaking Spanish makes you non-white). The problem for whites who want things to be like they were in the 1950s is that the US is now ideologically dominated by folks who are determined not to let that happen.
The conservative whites who adhered to actual or cultural Christianity and other traditional values lost the ideological war. It was an ideological civil war fought mostly between whites. The whites who despise those traditional values won.
There may well end up being a kind of apartheid but it will be ideological apartheid, with traditionalist conservatives becoming more and more marginalised and increasingly being denied access to good jobs and educational opportunities and living as a kind of underclass.
This is another problem that libertarianism just can't deal with.
Whites don’t want to live there anyway.
Many in the UMC and above do.
My issue here is with the libertarians who don’t seem to have any strategy for maintaining power.
In any case demographic dominance is meaningless. It’s ideological dominance that matters. Whites in the US still have overwhelming demographic dominance (unless you buy into the fantasy that speaking Spanish makes you non-white). The problem for whites who want things to be like they were in the 1950s is that the US is now ideologically dominated by folks who are determined not to let that happen.
The conservative whites who adhered to actual or cultural Christianity and other traditional values lost the ideological war. It was an ideological civil war fought mostly between whites. The whites who despise those traditional values won.
There may well end up being a kind of apartheid but it will be ideological apartheid, with traditionalist conservatives becoming more and more marginalised and increasingly being denied access to good jobs and educational opportunities and living as a kind of underclass.
This is another problem that libertarianism just can’t deal with.
Many in the UMC and above do.Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie
Fortunately rich whites will always be able to live wherever the hell they want to live.
,Replies: @Aldon, @dfordoom
Indeed. Nerds/Autists by large are an aberration that only come to be in an industrialized, rootless, alienated, society.
They don’t breed. Speaks enough.
To be honest it's difficult to imagine a close-knit community that is not going to be based on the enforcement of social/moral rules.
Are libertarians OK with social coercion? You know, where you don't get arrested by the government for breaking the rules, you just have your life turned into a living Hell by the other members of the community until you conform?
By the way, I'm not trying to bait you (I know that sometimes I do try to bait libertarians but in this case I'm not doing that). I'm genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with social coercion and with limitations on freedom imposed by non-government actors.Replies: @iffen, @Achmed E. Newman, @Aldon
Lolbertarians are either nerds, patholgical, Uncle Toms, or damaged women. They’re no different than the homodyke in being a creature of liberalism with modernity.
Many in the UMC and above do.Replies: @dfordoom, @Rosie
In California, UMC means 1 million a year.
Economic separation is not morally superior to de facto separation however much the rich like to pretend otherwise.
And Australians know what happens when you rely on the British. One word - Singapore.
There's a term that accurately describes nations that rely on Great and Powerful friends for their defence. They're called vassal states. Australia is a US vassal state. If we're smart we'll work on becoming a Chinese vassal state. If you're going to be a vassal you might as well choose to be the vassal of a sane non-aggressive friendly nation like China rather than treacherous weasels like the British or a totally insane hyper-aggressive rogue state like the US.
Australia and China have common interests. Australia and Britain have no interests in common. Australia and the US have no interests in common. Australia has more to fear from the United States than from China.Replies: @Aldon
The talking point that troops would be shooting their aunts and uncles is foolish since it pretends that America has the same demographics as in Mr. Washington’s day.
This isn’t the colonial days where the only minorities are Negro slaves. Murica is only 56% White and dropping off sharply once the Boomers die-off. Of the Whites left, enough of them are LBGT degenerates, coomers, feminists, etc. Point is, the LARPers here wouldn’t have any ties of heritage with the elites and their enforcers.
All successful and non-shithole revolutions depend on elite support. The LARPers have none. Trump and others in the GOP would grant the LARPers.
Plenty successful revolutions depend on foreign support. The LARPers would either have none or be used as pawns to keep the American empire weakened.
Agreed.
Agreed. That’s a reality that white nationalists, dissident rightists, etc just will not accept. Successful revolutions are mostly top-down affairs. The LARPers not only have no elite support, they have no prospect of ever getting any. And they just cannot see how futile all their keyboard warrior-posturing is.
,Replies: @Aldon, @dfordoom
Autists might be sad but they’re mostly harmless. I’m more worried by people who want to keep other people’s behaviour in line. Given a choice between the autists and the busybody control freaks I’d prefer the autists.
The problem with people who want to keep other people’s behaviour in line is that they usually don’t know where to stop. That’s how we got Political Correctness.
The mentality that drives the Volunteer Auxiliary Thought Police has always been with us in one form or another. It used to be the Christians. Now it’s the LGBT mob and the feminists. But the psychology is still the same.