Guns or Dildos, Which Better Stops Rape?

Carnal_Flower said:

Such as?

Click to expand...

They want special protections, safe places, speech codes that allow them to criticize anyone but punish those who criticize them, etc. I tell you, it disgusts me. My mother fought for women's rights in the `60s and `70s. I fought for gay rights in the `90s and into this century. With equality came the responsibility to stand on our own in the free market of ideas and economics. Yet, I see so many women, and some gays, take the attitude that they can't be expected to take care of themselves and want government, or their school, or their mommy and daddy, to protect them from the big, bad world.

Look at it another way. We have achieved equality. Off the top of my head, I can think of four or five major democracies that have had women as heads of government. While the USA has not done that yet (what could we expect when we ran a dishonest has-been like Hillary?), we have had women as leaders in the other two branches of government. Women have been named CEOs of many top corporations. Women and gays serve in countless state and city government leadership positions. Heck, even conservative Wisconsin elected a lesbian US Senator!

So what are all these women I see protesting trying to get? It's not equality; we have that. They seek, as I said before, special privileges and protection.

CeriseBuss said:

They want special protections, safe places, speech codes that allow them to criticize anyone but punish those who criticize them, etc. I tell you, it disgusts me. My mother fought for women's rights in the `60s and `70s. I fought for gay rights in the `90s and into this century. With equality came the responsibility to stand on our own in the free market of ideas and economics. Yet, I see so many women, and some gays, take the attitude that they can't be expected to take care of themselves and want government, or their school, or their mommy and daddy, to protect them from the big, bad world.

Look at it another way. We have achieved equality. Off the top of my head, I can think of four or five major democracies that have had women as heads of government. While the USA has not done that yet (what could we expect when we ran a dishonest has-been like Hillary?), we have had women as leaders in the other two branches of government. Women have been named CEOs of many top corporations. Women and gays serve in countless state and city government leadership positions. Heck, even conservative Wisconsin elected a lesbian US Senator!

So what are all these women I see protesting trying to get? It's not equality; we have that. They seek, as I said before, special privileges and protection.

Click to expand...

A tiny but not even slightly comprehensive list of areas in which equality still seems lacking ... these are just the things that came to mind instantly.

The gender wage gap (graphed by country).

Equal representation in political institutions.

Domestic violence.

CeriseBuss said:

They want special protections, safe places, speech codes that allow them to criticize anyone but punish those who criticize them, etc. I tell you, it disgusts me. My mother fought for women's rights in the `60s and `70s. I fought for gay rights in the `90s and into this century. With equality came the responsibility to stand on our own in the free market of ideas and economics. Yet, I see so many women, and some gays, take the attitude that they can't be expected to take care of themselves and want government, or their school, or their mommy and daddy, to protect them from the big, bad world.

Look at it another way. We have achieved equality. Off the top of my head, I can think of four or five major democracies that have had women as heads of government. While the USA has not done that yet (what could we expect when we ran a dishonest has-been like Hillary?), we have had women as leaders in the other two branches of government. Women have been named CEOs of many top corporations. Women and gays serve in countless state and city government leadership positions. Heck, even conservative Wisconsin elected a lesbian US Senator!

So what are all these women I see protesting trying to get? It's not equality; we have that. They seek, as I said before, special privileges and protection.

Click to expand...

It's been said of violent crimes (to include rape), that when it happens and seconds count, the police are only minutes away. There is no substitute when your life is in jeopardy... none... The crimes that get stopped and that didn't result in someone getting raped and/or killed don't make the headlines. Don't be a statistic, carry a gun!

coachdb18 said:

Don't be a statistic, carry a gun!

Click to expand...

Never take a pistol to a laser fight.

IOW whatever weapon you come up with, someone will have something heavier. Carry a .45 ACP with the sear-pin shaved for full-auto firing and you'll encounter a thug with a Bullpup alley-sweeper. Get yourself that beauty and you'll find yourself facing an RPG. Someone will always pack more punch than you. Arms races never stop.

Don't be a statistic. Avoid places where firearms seem necessary.

Hypoxia said:

Never take a pistol to a laser fight.

IOW whatever weapon you come up with, someone will have something heavier. Carry a .45 ACP with the sear-pin shaved for full-auto firing and you'll encounter a thug with a Bullpup alley-sweeper. Get yourself that beauty and you'll find yourself facing an RPG. Someone will always pack more punch than you. Arms races never stop.

Don't be a statistic. Avoid places where firearms seem necessary.

Click to expand...

Situational awareness is necessary, true enough, but one can't predict being carjacked, or being robbed at gunpoint just to go to an ATM. Take for example Eve Carson, the UNC student body president brutally murdered by two thugs in 2008, pleaded for her life and even asked them to pray with her, but instead endured hours of unimaginable torture, and whose dead body eventually was eventually dumped on a Chapel Hill street.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...UNC-student-president-wanted-pray-murder.html

KimGordon67 said:

A tiny but not even slightly comprehensive list of areas in which equality still seems lacking ... these are just the things that came to mind instantly.

The gender wage gap (graphed by country).

Equal representation in political institutions.

Domestic violence.

Click to expand...

"The gender wage gap": That's been debunked, at least as far as the USA goes. When the numbers are normalized for controls like occupation and years of experience, the gap evaporates. Is there a gender gap? Yes, but it has more to do with our lifestyle choices. There is no statistical basis to claim discrimination.

"Equal representation in political institutions": This is similar to the gender gap. Again, when normalized for incumbency, for the fact that more men run than women, and for party trends (e.g., Republican women are more likely to run against male incumbents in Democrat dominated districts), women have actually done slightly better than men since 1996. Again, I point out that we have had many female Supreme Court justices and a female Speaker of the House. There does not seem to be much room for discrimination claims in that context.

"Domestic violence": This seems qualitatively different to me than the other two. The others, if real, would show a societal bias. Domestic violence is not something that happens at a societal level, but at a personal level. It is not about societal discrimination, but individual relationships and pathologies. As a society, we have responded by making such actions not just illegal, but giving them preferential (there is that word again) standing with mandatory arrest policies and such. I suppose, if you are looking for a societal solution to this inequality, we could encourage more women to beat up their husbands.

CeriseBuss said:

"The gender wage gap": That's been debunked, at least as far as the USA goes. When the numbers are normalized for controls like occupation and years of experience, the gap evaporates. Is there a gender gap? Yes, but it has more to do with our lifestyle choices. There is no statistical basis to claim discrimination.

"Equal representation in political institutions": This is similar to the gender gap. Again, when normalized for incumbency, for the fact that more men run than women, and for party trends (e.g., Republican women are more likely to run against male incumbents in Democrat dominated districts), women have actually done slightly better than men since 1996. Again, I point out that we have had many female Supreme Court justices and a female Speaker of the House. There does not seem to be much room for discrimination claims in that context.

"Domestic violence": This seems qualitatively different to me than the other two. The others, if real, would show a societal bias. Domestic violence is not something that happens at a societal level, but at a personal level. It is not about societal discrimination, but individual relationships and pathologies. As a society, we have responded by making such actions not just illegal, but giving them preferential (there is that word again) standing with mandatory arrest policies and such. I suppose, if you are looking for a societal solution to this inequality, we could encourage more women to beat up their husbands.

Click to expand...

So, women choose to, at a general level, earn less money than men because of our lifestyles? Controlling for occupation is just ridiculous - it's the fact that women cluster in lower paid occupations that causes the gap. Same with 'years of experience' ... I'm assuming the 'lifestyle choice' you're alluding to is women's 'choice' to take time out of paid employment to have and raise children (for which there is negligible-to-no remuneration)? You don't think it's a slightly weird coincidence that equal numbers of men don't make that 'choice' ... we're just doing it because ... what? Hormones? Boobs? Uteruses?

Political representation - as with the gender wage gap, I was really making a claim for discrimination ... but do you think it's just coincidence that more men run that women? We don't run for political because ... what? Hormones? Boobs? Uteruses?

Domestic violence happens at a societal level. Rates decrease when you denormalise it socially. Rates decrease when you start questioning men's entitlement to things like obedience from their wives. The societal solution is to change the ways in which masculinity is constructed.

Yes, but you're not being specific about what these so-called Special Protections and Privileges are. Such as? I have no clue what you mean.

CeriseBuss said:

They want special protections, safe places, speech codes that allow them to criticize anyone but punish those who criticize them, etc. I tell you, it disgusts me. My mother fought for women's rights in the `60s and `70s. I fought for gay rights in the `90s and into this century. With equality came the responsibility to stand on our own in the free market of ideas and economics. Yet, I see so many women, and some gays, take the attitude that they can't be expected to take care of themselves and want government, or their school, or their mommy and daddy, to protect them from the big, bad world.

Look at it another way. We have achieved equality. Off the top of my head, I can think of four or five major democracies that have had women as heads of government. While the USA has not done that yet (what could we expect when we ran a dishonest has-been like Hillary?), we have had women as leaders in the other two branches of government. Women have been named CEOs of many top corporations. Women and gays serve in countless state and city government leadership positions. Heck, even conservative Wisconsin elected a lesbian US Senator!

So what are all these women I see protesting trying to get? It's not equality; we have that. They seek, as I said before, special privileges and protection.

Click to expand...

I think it's a bad idea, and ultimately futile, to define political representation by innate traits. Women, most of whom, like most men, are poor, are not better represented by rich women than poor men. The black caucus in congress has NOT improved the material conditions of life for most blacks. Is it more important to be female or black? Hispanic or gay? If you belong to more than one identity group, which one 'represents' you? Should 8% of congress be black females? How many congress critters should be black lesbians? Should religion have its quotas as well? Do all the Korean Americans need to ghetto up so they can elect a congress person? They would get two, actually, so one Korean American Male and one Korean American Female- but should one of them be gay? Maybe on a rotating basis? Every 36 years, elect a gay Korean?

KimGordon67 said:

So, women choose to, at a general level, earn less money than men because of our lifestyles? Controlling for occupation is just ridiculous - it's the fact that women cluster in lower paid occupations that causes the gap. Same with 'years of experience' ... I'm assuming the 'lifestyle choice' you're alluding to is women's 'choice' to take time out of paid employment to have and raise children (for which there is negligible-to-no remuneration)? You don't think it's a slightly weird coincidence that equal numbers of men don't make that 'choice' ... we're just doing it because ... what? Hormones? Boobs? Uteruses?

Click to expand...

That's certainly one choice, but not the only ones. For example, studies show that women have, for whatever reason, less interest in going into certain higher-paying fields, those generally described as "heavy industry." (Similarly, fewer men choose to go into the now highly paid field of nursing. Is that proof of discrimination against men?) I think women (and men) should have the right to make that, and any other choice, they want. It's a freedom thing.

The real point is, that the only true way to show discrimination in pay is when comparing pay between men and women doing the same work, at the same quality, with the same level of experience. Statistics play an important role in that because they wash out individual intangible factors. The point is, when this is done, it shows, in industry after industry, no significant wage gap between the genders.

KimGordon67 said:

Political representation - as with the gender wage gap, I was really making a claim for discrimination ... but do you think it's just coincidence that more men run that women? We don't run for political because ... what? Hormones? Boobs? Uteruses?

Click to expand...

I don't know why more men run that women. To me, it doesn't matter. Every individual makes choices in life for myriad reasons unique to herself. I believe they have the right to make those choices without me judging their personal values and preferences. Regardless of the reason, when this is taken into account, there is no basis for claiming societal discrimination in voting patterns.

KimGordon67 said:

Domestic violence happens at a societal level. Rates decrease when you denormalise it socially. Rates decrease when you start questioning men's entitlement to things like obedience from their wives. The societal solution is to change the ways in which masculinity is constructed.

Click to expand...

Okay. Maybe I'm naive having grown up in the suburbs and lived my entire adult life in Madison, but I'm still quite sure that over the past several decades the USA has treated domestic violence as abnormal socially and fully questioned, and dismissed, "men's entitlement to things like obedience from their wives." Have domestic violence rates fallen because of these social changes? Or does domestic violence remain common due to "individual relationships and pathologies"?

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure how you mean "to change the ways in which masculinity is constructed." What would doing that look like? How would it be done?

DrDelirium said:

I think it's a bad idea, and ultimately futile, to define political representation by innate traits. Women, most of whom, like most men, are poor, are not better represented by rich women than poor men. The black caucus in congress has NOT improved the material conditions of life for most blacks. Is it more important to be female or black? Hispanic or gay? If you belong to more than one identity group, which one 'represents' you? Should 8% of congress be black females? How many congress critters should be black lesbians? Should religion have its quotas as well? Do all the Korean Americans need to ghetto up so they can elect a congress person? They would get two, actually, so one Korean American Male and one Korean American Female- but should one of them be gay? Maybe on a rotating basis? Every 36 years, elect a gay Korean?

Click to expand...

I think this is why the ideal Democratic candidate now has become a dwarf Black Spanish speaking lesbian paraplegic with AIDS and a lisp, and twelve kids with autism all from different fathers...

Of course the Gups know that teams of old white guys are best suited to decide on health issues for women, non-whites, otherwise-not-old-white-guys, etc.

And teams of rich old white guys know best how to deal with our diverse demographics.

And I've got a really YUUGE bridge to sell you. It's very clean. Cash-and-carry only.

But really, ethnicity and gender and age and all that shit don't matter. Money matters. Rich old white guys tend to have the most money, so they matter, and we don't. Bend over and smile.

Carnal_Flower said:

Yes, but you're not being specific about what these so-called Special Protections and Privileges are. Such as? I have no clue what you mean.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you're just clueless, then. I list several right at the start of my post.

The overall point remains. Given the state of current law and society, what else are they trying to accomplish by protesting? Can you answer that for me please?

What is worth protesting?

"They want special protections, safe places, speech codes that allow them to criticize anyone but punish those who criticize them, etc."

Sounds like a bunch of non-specific rehashed Right Wing Fox News B.S. to me.

What "special protections"? What "code words?"

Depends on the Protest. When I went to the Women's March, we were protesting the dickhead in the White House. We weren't asking for anything at all, except maybe respect for women. But I guess that's too "special."

Sometimes they're protesting, I don't know, right wing fuckwads trying to take away ANY reproductive rights for women, or cutting off funds to PLanned Parenthood, or taking away health insurance for children, maternal care, cancer screenings for women, and domestic violence support.

Sometimes they are protesting how rape is treated on campuses.

SOunds like you are the one who is clueless.

CeriseBuss said:

Well, I guess you're just clueless, then. I list several right at the start of my post.

The overall point remains. Given the state of current law and society, what else are they trying to accomplish by protesting? Can you answer that for me please?

Click to expand...

CeriseBuss said:

That's certainly one choice, but not the only ones. For example, studies show that women have, for whatever reason, less interest in going into certain higher-paying fields, those generally described as "heavy industry." (Similarly, fewer men choose to go into the now highly paid field of nursing. Is that proof of discrimination against men?) I think women (and men) should have the right to make that, and any other choice, they want. It's a freedom thing.

The real point is, that the only true way to show discrimination in pay is when comparing pay between men and women doing the same work, at the same quality, with the same level of experience. Statistics play an important role in that because they wash out individual intangible factors. The point is, when this is done, it shows, in industry after industry, no significant wage gap between the genders.



I don't know why more men run that women. To me, it doesn't matter. Every individual makes choices in life for myriad reasons unique to herself. I believe they have the right to make those choices without me judging their personal values and preferences. Regardless of the reason, when this is taken into account, there is no basis for claiming societal discrimination in voting patterns.



Okay. Maybe I'm naive having grown up in the suburbs and lived my entire adult life in Madison, but I'm still quite sure that over the past several decades the USA has treated domestic violence as abnormal socially and fully questioned, and dismissed, "men's entitlement to things like obedience from their wives." Have domestic violence rates fallen because of these social changes? Or does domestic violence remain common due to "individual relationships and pathologies"?

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure how you mean "to change the ways in which masculinity is constructed." What would doing that look like? How would it be done?

Click to expand...

I don't think I said anything about discrimination. I'm talking about equality.

Basically, you seem to be arguing that everyone makes 'free individual choices'. I would dispute that. If you can see clear patterns in things like career choices or movement into the political sphere, or committing domestic violence, in which the likelihood of certain decisions increases or decreases markedly on the basis of gender, ethnicity, income, etc, this suggests that there's something other than 'free individual choice' at play.

DrDelirium said:

I think it's a bad idea, and ultimately futile, to define political representation by innate traits. Women, most of whom, like most men, are poor, are not better represented by rich women than poor men. The black caucus in congress has NOT improved the material conditions of life for most blacks. Is it more important to be female or black? Hispanic or gay? If you belong to more than one identity group, which one 'represents' you? Should 8% of congress be black females? How many congress critters should be black lesbians? Should religion have its quotas as well? Do all the Korean Americans need to ghetto up so they can elect a congress person? They would get two, actually, so one Korean American Male and one Korean American Female- but should one of them be gay? Maybe on a rotating basis? Every 36 years, elect a gay Korean?

Click to expand...

At a general level, I agree with you - e.g. while I'm a woman, if I were voting in America, I would have supported Sanders over Clinton.

But I think the issue of representation is a bit more complex than you suggest. It's important, for example, that there is something at least vaguely approaching a proportional representation of women in government so that young women see this is a viable possibility for them. And the 'merit' argument has limited reach - for example, the boards of large companies tend to be overwhelmingly men. Is that seriously because there aren't any women up to the job - and if not, why not? 'Because uteruses' seems like an unlikely cause, so there must be something happening at some point in the system to create this outcome - it hasn't just happened by chance.
However, the point regarding poverty is valid - no matter what, the likelihood of deprived members of any group moving into power is fairly low compared to the privileged members of that group.

CeriseBuss said:

I did not read the original post to be so much about the pros and cons of gun control as I read it to be about the ridiculous ways self-styled "Progressives" handle political debate now-of-days.

***SNIP***

I live in Madison, where the girls (I'm choosing my words carefully) in the video are waving dildos and chanting when they find it impossible to intellectually debate the woman's valid point. That's what the Left has become in Wisconsin and, it seems, in most of the country. As someone who in the past has proudly called herself a liberal, what most liberals have become of late I find an embarrassment.

Click to expand...

I studied at the University of Wisconsin - Madison for nine years, 1982-1991. The leftists there had already gotten loony, trying to relive the glory days of the 1960's when they had something legitimate to protest. I remember for a while in the mid-1980's, some activists were papering campus with red posters saying : "STOP THE WAR!" No one was quite sure exactly what war they meant or how we should stop it. I finally saw one stapling a poster to a pole so I asked and learned they were actually protesting funding the Contras in Nicaragua. They just had not managed to articulate this in any of their literature in their attempts to act like it was the same as when their elders had protested Vietnam.

That was one of the better, more thoughtful groups. Most just sat around in drum circles and ranted against Reagan, but never offered any new ideas. The only reason today's activists seem even more vapid is because our culture has become that much more shallow (and that's across the board; compare Reagan's statesmanship to Trump's tweets). Current leftists have no sense and little knowledge of history. So they chant meaningless slogans just to make themselves feel relevant in a world they really do not comprehend.

KimGordon67 said:

At a general level, I agree with you - e.g. while I'm a woman, if I were voting in America, I would have supported Sanders over Clinton.

But I think the issue of representation is a bit more complex than you suggest. It's important, for example, that there is something at least vaguely approaching a proportional representation of women in government so that young women see this is a viable possibility for them. And the 'merit' argument has limited reach - for example, the boards of large companies tend to be overwhelmingly men. Is that seriously because there aren't any women up to the job - and if not, why not? 'Because uteruses' seems like an unlikely cause, so there must be something happening at some point in the system to create this outcome - it hasn't just happened by chance.
However, the point regarding poverty is valid - no matter what, the likelihood of deprived members of any group moving into power is fairly low compared to the privileged members of that group.

Click to expand...

If it's about 'viable possibilities' you admit yourself that this is ultimately class-based, not gender based. So ALL women are supposed to support female candidates so that a handful of elite women can think about having more power, power that the mass of women will never have, just as the mass of men will never have it. At base, the problem stems from a system of a small number of 'winners' and a huge number of 'losers.' Having proportional representation of these superficially defined 'identities' among the 'winners' does not alter the system or create justice for the majority- in fact, it obstructs it by creating the illusions that 'women' gain from the absurd power and wealth achieved by a handful of Senators and CEOs. Let's try the argument of proportionately on ante-bellum chattel slavery- should the Abolitionists instead have argued that slavery was okay if 80% of slaves were white?
I have no interest in supporting a system of massive privilege and oppression, whether the most privileged look like me or not. You don't overthrow the system of privilege by joining the elite, you just change the distribution of privilege.

PrincepsCyberius said:

I studied at the University of Wisconsin - Madison for nine years, 1982-1991. The leftists there had already gotten loony, trying to relive the glory days of the 1960's when they had something legitimate to protest. I remember for a while in the mid-1980's, some activists were papering campus with red posters saying : "STOP THE WAR!" No one was quite sure exactly what war they meant or how we should stop it. I finally saw one stapling a poster to a pole so I asked and learned they were actually protesting funding the Contras in Nicaragua. They just had not managed to articulate this in any of their literature in their attempts to act like it was the same as when their elders had protested Vietnam.

That was one of the better, more thoughtful groups. Most just sat around in drum circles and ranted against Reagan, but never offered any new ideas. The only reason today's activists seem even more vapid is because our culture has become that much more shallow (and that's across the board; compare Reagan's statesmanship to Trump's tweets). Current leftists have no sense and little knowledge of history. So they chant meaningless slogans just to make themselves feel relevant in a world they really do not comprehend.

Click to expand...

Left out eating Brats and drinking Millers

DrDelirium said:

If it's about 'viable possibilities' you admit yourself that this is ultimately class-based, not gender based. So ALL women are supposed to support female candidates so that a handful of elite women can think about having more power, power that the mass of women will never have, just as the mass of men will never have it. At base, the problem stems from a system of a small number of 'winners' and a huge number of 'losers.' Having proportional representation of these superficially defined 'identities' among the 'winners' does not alter the system or create justice for the majority- in fact, it obstructs it by creating the illusions that 'women' gain from the absurd power and wealth achieved by a handful of Senators and CEOs. Let's try the argument of proportionately on ante-bellum chattel slavery- should the Abolitionists instead have argued that slavery was okay if 80% of slaves were white?
I have no interest in supporting a system of massive privilege and oppression, whether the most privileged look like me or not. You don't overthrow the system of privilege by joining the elite, you just change the distribution of privilege.

Click to expand...

No, quite clearly I don't think that at all - women should support the candidate who best represents their interests, however they conceptualise those interests. I just don't happen to think class always trumps gender, and for a lot of people (who don't happen to be men), disadvantage is significant magnified by the intersection of those things (and more, if you add in ethnicity, ability, etc). If you 'level the playing field' so that disadvantaged men can gain positions of power, then yay on a class level ... but not so great for women. By your argument, we should have bothered giving women the vote until workers had achieved all the rights they wanted ... really?

It is possible to care about more than one thing at once. I can argue against capitalism and patriarchy at the same time.

KimGordon67 said:

No, quite clearly I don't think that at all - women should support the candidate who best represents their interests, however they conceptualise those interests. I just don't happen to think class always trumps gender, and for a lot of people (who don't happen to be men), disadvantage is significant magnified by the intersection of those things (and more, if you add in ethnicity, ability, etc). If you 'level the playing field' so that disadvantaged men can gain positions of power, then yay on a class level ... but not so great for women. By your argument, we should have bothered giving women the vote until workers had achieved all the rights they wanted ... really?

It is possible to care about more than one thing at once. I can argue against capitalism and patriarchy at the same time.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can, but if your argument is based on gender quotas at the top of the pyramid, you're only arguing against patriarchy. You might argue that in a gender-blind society, there would be approximately equal representation of the sexes in government, but you cannot argue that a gender-blind society is by nature a just society. Again, redistributing injustice is not a move forward except for those individuals who benefit at someone else's cost. Thus, participating in anti-patriarchal struggle that does not directly address the inequities of capitalism is actually a struggle on behalf of a system of privilege, it pits one group against another and maintains the system of inequity. It is selfish, self-serving and self-destructive.
If you are indeed arguing against both patriarchy and capitalism at the same time, citing the gender distribution of elected representatives and CEOs is counter productive.

DrDelirium said:

Perhaps you can, but if your argument is based on gender quotas at the top of the pyramid, you're only arguing against patriarchy. You might argue that in a gender-blind society, there would be approximately equal representation of the sexes in government, but you cannot argue that a gender-blind society is by nature a just society. Again, redistributing injustice is not a move forward except for those individuals who benefit at someone else's cost. Thus, participating in anti-patriarchal struggle that does not directly address the inequities of capitalism is actually a struggle on behalf of a system of privilege, it pits one group against another and maintains the system of inequity. It is selfish, self-serving and self-destructive.
If you are indeed arguing against both patriarchy and capitalism at the same time, citing the gender distribution of elected representatives and CEOs is counter productive.

Click to expand...

Hei, would you recommend a social media platform or general board with a political slash social psychology slash philosophy main orientation?

Sorry if I come across as being over-familiar.
I asked a couple of people whose posts interest me the same question. I also researched the internet but I'm undecided amongst the plethora of sites out there.

Much appreciated if you could provide a or some links.

Addit.
A site that caters to dilettantes such as myself and is tolerant of all levels of knowledge, of course.
Not geared to those who practice these disciplines as their main profession.

Left-wing groups taking up guns in ‘arms race’ against Trump-backing right-wingers

Left-wing activists are taking up arms in response to increasingly bold actions by white supremacists and other right-wing extremists.

Membership in left-leaning gun groups has jumped under President Donald Trump, just as militia membership dramatically rose during his predecessor’s presidency, reported the New York Daily News.

The National African-American Gun Association added 500 new members within two days after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville left a counter-protester dead, and the group went from four chapters to 45 in the past year.

The national Liberal Gun Club has roughly doubled its paid membership since the election, to about 5,500, and the LGBTQ-oriented Pink Pistols groups also added members.

Click to expand...

“Is an arms race what we really want?” asked Scott Fearing, executive director of Rochester’s Out Alliance. “What we know in any arms race is that it’s never good for anybody, and death and destruction and harm and hurt can come when so many people have arms and weapons.”

Click to expand...

Proficiency takes practice, 1,000 rounds with a rifle, 5,000 rounds with a handgun.