Install this theme
Daniele Watts

I seriously doubt most of the people expressing outrage over the situation will post what really happened. She wasn’t arrested for being black. She was arrested because she was topless on the side of a public street grinding on her boyfriend and when the cops asked for an ID she refused.

It’s called public indecency and is illegal. But instead we have millions of people who view her as a victim instead of a Hollywood asshole who thought she was above the law and then lied to her followers and fans to get support.

What did you people expect the cops to think upon finding a noncomplying woman with her shirt up grinding on a tattooed and shave-head man in a car lacking a bumper on the side of a public street.

Various witnesses have stated that they were in fact having sex, although the photos only show her shirt partially up from the rear and them in a position quite suited for sex.

I’m not a friend of cops, nor do I think what she did was necessarily wrong. But lying about it? Not cool.

Deserve

Have you gotten annoyed  with how people use words to lend importance, thereby diluting the meaning of all other occasions that warrant the use of that word. Such as “rape rape” as opposed to just plain rape. Or how the the group that holds a view opposing to yours are fascists. And don’t forget throwing numbers in to lend support to your position - like saying “I’m a million percent sure”.

One of those words that has been getting to me is “deserve”. It’s like that “want” vs “need” argument. Yes, I’m guilty too. I didn’t “need” coffee, I wanted it. Deserve falls into the same area. You don’t deserve a wonderful boyfriend - you want one. When you throw that word into the way you think, it changes how you interact.

If I dump a woman because I deserve better, it implies I am already perfect enough for a woman of a higher caliber. I do not think I should improve myself, rather that I should fire the gal and hire a better one. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I do not possess the qualities that would satisfy a better woman. I am saying that using the word deserve moves the initiative onto the other party. When I want another better woman, I am willing to work for it. Deserve implies desire and complacency, while want is desire and aggression. Which one do you think lands you the thing you want?

There’s probably some connection between the Christian cultural underpinnings of American culture, you know, the whole cosmic justice deal. You put in XYZ and bada bing magic = heaven. People take that line of thinking and apply it to other areas of life. You lose weight and do some pilates shit and you expect Edward Sparkly-pants to woo you because you put in your time. Who knows, maybe I’m going on a cynical streak here. There’s more to it but I’m supposed to run to Walmart for that coffee I deserve, so later ya’ll.

I recently discovered Oriana Fallaci - pity she passed on after I started reading her works. From what little I’ve read, she hated any sort of oppressive group, from Mussolini to modern Islam. A passionate mix of a Italian woman and perpetual revolutionary. Few people can say they fought in WWII as a freedom fighter and then went on to interview nearly every major political figure in the 20th century.

While her later works might have gone a bit overboard against Islam in the end, the death threats she received and legal railroading shows she definitely hit a nerve and was onto something.

I’m genuinely surprised she was not championed by the women’s rights movements. She started out in supported of women and never seemed to stop. Without digging too deep into it, I found this line in a short history in the UK Telegraph after her death, “Although she had started out hailing feminism as the most important contemporary revolution, Oriana Fallaci came to deplore the way it had gradually become a “sort of political party”.”

Which partially explains why modern feminism isn’t as interested in her. Perhaps there’s more to the story, but for now I’ll just order one of her books.

The reaction to the hacked photos is reaching a point that I’m getting annoyed.

Please stop calling it “sexual abuse” or a “sex crime”. Having studied and talked with victims of sexual abuse, men and women who have been raped, please realize that comparing their hell to being embarrassed because someone exposed a celebrity’s intimate moments is not the same.

Moreover, it will never be the same, and to equalize the two blows one up to mind bogglingly silly levels, and completely dismisses the seriousness of the other. Exaggerating what happened just makes you look silly.

Stop making your heroines into victims. She’s a grown woman and I should hope being such supporters of her means you give her the credit of being able to act like an adult in response to all this.

Just noticed the stuff about the leaked celebrity photos. Although it would be more honest to call it hacked, but I don’t get the horror that somewhere out there a guy is jerking off. Jerking off doesn’t make a guy a loser or a misogynist any more than a woman rubbing one out makes her a bitch or a loser. What people do in their own time that doesn’t affect anyone else really should be ignored.

Knowing my lesbian friend, she’s probably rubbing one out to Jennifer Lawrence right now. But if you take a heterosexual male suddenly we can assume his character and motivations are a few steps removed from that of a rapist.

I’ve had unwanted attention over nudes, with exs of mine informing me that months after the breakup they still masturbated to me. My reaction was to feel angry and disturbed, but at the end of the day I can’t (and don’t want to) control them. What they do to get themselves off isn’t any of my business and that they do it without my “consent” doesn’t make them manhating rapists.

So please stop demonizing dudes and their sexuality. If it doesn’t affect you in a real way, let it go. The fact that right now there are probably hundreds of thousands of dicks being stroked to Jennifer Lawrence shouldn’t ruin your day or be a reason to lose your temper.

As per the dictionary definition, “Respect is a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements”.

I’ve been seeing this saying around tumblr and other social media outlets, “teach men to respect women” or “men should be taught to respect women”. I don’t see how respect fits into that sentence. Respect is a deep connection after you have known the person enough to gauge their abilities, qualities, or achievements. To apply that in a blanket way to everyone within a group (team women here) cheapens it. Teaching someone to have admiration for person X is an absurd suggestion. If you or I can be taught to admire someone or hate someone else, that removes personal judgment and choice. It loses it’s weight as well. How can you respect me for respecting someone if you know the only reason I do so is because I was taught to. Not because I made a free choice. If someone tells me they respect a celebrity and cannot give me a few reasons why they respect said celebrity past “everyone thinks they’re awesome” you’ve just fallen off my “friends to turn to for advice” list.

And it is not like the reverse is true. Men do not respect men. Such relationships do happen, but it is in no way a common occurrence. I have a few men I respect and a majority I’ve placed into the “seems okay” or “asshole I will never lend my keys or money to again”.

Now if the sentence went “teach men to tolerate women” or “teach men to be polite to women” I could nod and agree. Tolerance is to not interfering in someone’s affairs. Being considerate is not that hard. Most men are rude and inconsiderate to each other too, so why not ask everyone to tolerate and be polite to each other

therealsteelman:

Source?

Kellerman  - Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.
And to quote a summary of the conclusion:
The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
While I’m not going to read the whole thing during dinner, it states that most of the homes where murders occurred were occupied by “case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.”
Now I’m not sure how well the ran the numbers, but it looks like if you or your buddy don’t do drugs, are not living with a violent ex-con or domestic batterer, and you have a gun, you’re cool.
We already know that most murders are by people we know, guns have nothing to do with that.
To quote Bill Burr - having a gun increases the risk of dying by gunshot like having a swimming pool increases the risk of drowning. As yes, it does, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get a swimming pool.

EDIT - afterthought, they might have controlled for the druggies and found a useful conclusion. No idea just now.
However there are external factors. People who are not raised around guns usually pick one up when they are afraid. So do people who are likely to be murdered purchase guns, or does the whole chance of being murdered happen AFTER they purchase the gun.

therealsteelman:

Source?

Kellerman  - Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.

And to quote a summary of the conclusion:

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

While I’m not going to read the whole thing during dinner, it states that most of the homes where murders occurred were occupied by “case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.”

Now I’m not sure how well the ran the numbers, but it looks like if you or your buddy don’t do drugs, are not living with a violent ex-con or domestic batterer, and you have a gun, you’re cool.

We already know that most murders are by people we know, guns have nothing to do with that.

To quote Bill Burr - having a gun increases the risk of dying by gunshot like having a swimming pool increases the risk of drowning. As yes, it does, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get a swimming pool.

EDIT - afterthought, they might have controlled for the druggies and found a useful conclusion. No idea just now.

However there are external factors. People who are not raised around guns usually pick one up when they are afraid. So do people who are likely to be murdered purchase guns, or does the whole chance of being murdered happen AFTER they purchase the gun.

My Friend and Pentecostals

This one is a bit long.

So a good friend of mine moved in with a certain member of her family who happened to be what I thought was a “rabid Jesus freak”. And I don’t mean that in a bad way, my sisters are similar in their Catholic congregation. You just know not to curse nearby or get them started on the bible.

This friend of mine set foot in a church once in her life and being native american, would sometimes joke about aspects of that culture. She knows I am a pagan and yes, I do get the “sacrifice a virgin for me plz” texts.

Back to the title. Her relative goes to a Pentecostal church 2-3 times a week. A church that is run by a family (Daddy was the original pastor and all the kiddies grew up and head their own churches) which naturally rubbed me the wrong way. Nepotism doesn’t usually end well. Anyway, apparently Pentecostals “speak in tongues” which is gibberish supposedly brought on the Holy Spirit (or Ghost, if you’re old school Catholic). Her rather abrupt introduction to this was her walking in on her relative sitting in some sort of trance while she spouted unintelligible words.

I’ll admit I’m a bit biased against Pentecostals. A friend of mine years ago grew up in a Pentecostal home and being a teenager she made mistakes. Her parents threw her out because, and I shit you not, she was bringing demons into the house and making her father ill.

Back to the present situation. My native american friend doesn’t like going to church that often, and objects to the pastor and her relative prodding her to speak in tongues. However she expressed interest in it to me and started reading a bible on her own. Then her relative informed her that since she was not taking it seriously enough, she should go watch an exorcism.

Cue the scary music.

Exorcisms among Pentecostals are fairly commonplace from what little I researched (youtube and google ftw). So we agreed she shouldn’t sweat it.

Long story short, she was the one being exorcised (and yes, I called it). She walked in, was surrounded by a group of people she had never met all claiming they cared about her. She turned on her heel and walked out.

Now please, can someone tell me where lying fits in the Pentecostal faith? If you really want to convert someone, they have to want to join up. You can’t exorcise their “demons” (which supposedly can be used to cure homosexuality) and expect them to thank you.

So out the window goes her bible and she is moving far, far away.

This experience brought out some things I’ve never liked about Christians. I know being saved is important to them, but it doesn’t stop there. If you were a POS before the water walking Jew gave you the thumbs up and you do not engage in some serious counseling and behavioral changes, you will usually still be a POS. Except now you’re a insufferably holier-than-thou POS.

Religion is not supposed to be an excuse where once you “see the light” all your past flaws are no more and you’re a good person. And I think a small dose of religion could have help my friend straighten out, but instead the crazies come out of the woodwork.

Anyway, gotta find another virgin for Khorne.