When the Democrats took back the House of Representatives during this last election, it gave them the ability to once again set the legislative agenda. And, today, we saw how important that was. For the first time since the Republicans took control of the House during the 2010 midterms, there was a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on the subject of gun violence in America.
Democrats, of course, had wanted to hold hearings over the past eight years, during which time we saw increasingly deadly mass shootings in places like Orlando, Las Vegas and Parkland, but they were blocked at every turn by Republicans, who chose instead to focus their attention on made-up scandals involving Hillary Clinton’s email server, the Benghazi attack, and the private lives of FBI agents investigating the Trump administration.
Well, today, all of that came to an end, and, after eight long years, the House Judiciary Committee began public discussions on House Resolution 8 (HR8), the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. And, as you might imagine, the Republicans on the Committee did not like it one bit. [Some 90% of Americans agree that there should be background checks for gun purchases, but that apparently doesn’t matter to those elected officials who are bought and paid for by the gun lobby (NRA).]
Here, if you haven’t seen it yet, is footage of Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz toeing the party line, claiming, without citing any evidence, that gun violence in America would be solved not by common sense laws, but by a wall along our southern border.
During today’s House hearing on #HR8, Rep. Matt Gaetz said building “the wall” would be more effective than background checks. He then got into an argument with @manueloliver00, whose son Joaquin was killed in Parkland, and tried to have him ejected. pic.twitter.com/8KjC8r9BWB
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) February 6, 2019
“I hope we do not forget the pain, and anguish, and sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens,” Gaetz said. “[Background checks] would not have stopped many of the circumstances I raised, but a wall, a barrier on the southern border may have, and that’s what we’re fighting for.”
This, as you might imagine, led to shouts from members of the audience, which included Manuel Oliver and Fred Guttenberg, the fathers of two students murdered during the mass shooting at Parkland High School. Oliver yelled out that Gaetz was lying, and Guttenberg said, “Our loved ones were killed by an American male.” The best response to Gaetz, however, came from Representative David Cicilline, who asked the committee’s chairman if there were rules against making false statements. “Are members in Congress entitled to just make things up?,” he asked, as applause broke out in the room… Gaetz responded by asking that the victims of immigrant violence be shown respect, and requesting that Oliver and Guttenberg be removed from the room. [Gaetz, I should add, represents a district in Florida, the state where the Parkland murders took place.]
There was a lot of other stuff that I wanted to dig into tonight, but I couldn’t not share this exchange, as it truly gets to the heart of what we’re dealing with in Donald Trump’s post-truth America… I mean, we know, for a fact, that immigrants, both legal and undocumented, commit far fewer crimes than native-born Americans. It’s a proven fact, and we have data to back it up, just like we know, for a certainty, that building a wall across our southern border would do nothing to stop the flow of drugs, weapons and criminals into our country. But we allow the conversation to continue, the same way we allow people to claim, falsely, that the scientific consensus on global climate change is still out. And, just like we know that a wall would not protect us from mass shootings, we know that universal background checks, and other common sense reforms, would. We know this because we’ve seen such things work elsewhere. And yet the NRA continues to lie, and tell us that laws like HR8 would “only make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable.” It’s simply not true. And, thank god, we now have a party in control of the House that will at lease allow a fact-based conversation to take place in front of the public.
[Gaetz, by they way, is a convicted drunk driver, who, last year, invited a Holocaust denier to be his guest at Trump’s first State of the Union address. Furthermore, he’s a friend of Roger Stone’s, and a confidant of Donald Trump’s. And he’s worked alongside Devin Nunes to subvert the Mueller investigation. And we need to find someone to take his seat in Florida.]
138 Comments
“And we need to find someone to take his seat in Florida.”
This is what I meant when I cautioned that running a calorie deficit might affect you mentally. Look I agree Gaetz is a turd, but behold the impotent hubris coming from a small stakes blogger from a hick town in MICHIGAN!
The Founders were well aware the people would sometimes make unfortunate choices for their representatives. But even the Founders with the lowest expectations for popular government would have been astonished at the spectacle of @mattgaetz as a member of Congress.
Universal background checks cannot happen, unless there is universal registration. Universal registration is an impossibility, so before this half baked infringement even gets to committee, it’s a failure.
Oh, and the 90% talking point is repeatedly debunked by scholars such as John Lott.
Ignoring the fact that in the age of Trump, you and others want to disarm your neighbors, means you are daft.
Florida Man.
Steve T. please explain how back ground checks will result in disarming my neighbors. Given who some of my neighbors have been over the years maybe not a bad result. Help me to understand how background checks will give us this result.
Just read what he said and use your brain cell to put it in context. A wall would obviously be more effective against violent illegal immigrant crimes than background checks on Americans buying guns.
“I hope we do not forget the pain, and anguish, and sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens,” Gaetz said. “[Background checks] would not have stopped many of the circumstances I raised, but a wall, a barrier on the southern border may have, and that’s what we’re fighting for.”
While privileged white boys continue to prattle about immigrants and native Americans, AOC and the Justice Democrats are actually pointing the way to a better future for all of us.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-greennewdeal/democrats-launch-10-year-green-new-deal-for-clean-energy-idUSKCN1PW16I
Funny how you go to general degradation when you lose the argument. That’s all you have.
Re: the Green New Deal – how would we not be caught flat-footed without a viable replacement for fuel in ten years? Agenda 21
Wobblie,
The truth is always important.
I think AOC’s call for policies that help protect the environment are ambitious but we should be ambitious about protecting our environment. Without a livable environment we have nothing…. Your attempts at identity politics smears always seem so forced and off the mark…I don’t know why you don’t give up trying to playing that silly game. You are better than that.
Why don’t you tweet out to victims of illegal immigrants they are just white privilege prattlers?
Did you used to hang around the Diag pushing socialism to anyone who would listen by any chance, weeblie?
I’m just a working man, never attended college in Michigan. HW you continue to want to talk about events which we have beaten to death on this site. Hardly think it is worth my time to continue to discuss issues which we have clearly demonstrated there is no common ground. Since “winning” is all that matters to you-go ahead and call it a victory–who cares, except other privileged white boys who feel threatened.
You are the ones who keep lying your ass off. Is it painful to keep getting smoked on literally everything you say? I don’t know about you but I don’t enter a debate to try to lose.
Steve T., John Lott looks like an academic who could not hold a job. In his academic career he has worked at University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the American Enterprise Institute. Being unable to become a tenured academic he seems to have opted to become a shil for right wing think tanks. Being a sycophant for powerful interest is not a career choice that I hold in much respect.
I’m curious, how many on this web site have had a gun “brandished” at them? In my 62 years I’ve had guns pulled on me numerous times (at least 6 times), most recently outside of the Plasma center last winter. John Lott seems to think intimidation backed up by firepower is an appropriate response in 21st century America.
He couldn’t get tenured at University of Chicago and Yale?
I wonder if the findings of his research conflicted with the political orthodoxy of those institutions? Sounds like a loser, regardless.
If Steve T. wants to win some debates around here he had better stop offering us research from suspected loser types. Right Wobblie?
As is any private person can sell any long gun to any random person with zero record keeping requirements. This is totally insane.
“Hey random crazy white guy, I need some cash. Want to buy my AR10, a dozen 26rd p-mags, and a box of 420 rds? Cool lets throw it your trunk and away you go… play nice.”
University of Chicago as too liberal to hire a conservative thinker? That’s rich.
Chekcing John Lott’s wikipedia page, found this gem. I don;t dispute it’s findings at all.
“Using data from 1870 to 1940, Lott and Larry Kenny studied how state government expenditures and revenue changed in 48 state governments after women obtained the right to vote. Women were able to vote in 29 states before women’s suffrage and the adoption of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Lott stated that “women’s suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise.”
PS It seems the gentleman decided to make more money than he could as a scholar, first working for a think tank and now as a news commentator. The assumption that he couldn’t get a job in academia is a big stretch.
You people have truly been swallowed by the abyss. No one agrees with this genetic antagonism but a handful of obnoxious jerks like you. Americans of all colors despise it. NPR poll has Latino Trump approval rate at 50% (+-3.8%). You aren’t winning shit ever again.
“But you’re a FWM!!!”
Hahahaha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQSZRrJcdE
HW,
Why do you think Q has gone dark? Is the Huber grand jury a failure because Sessions orchestrated it? Why haven’t key witness in the FBI been called to testify before the grand jury? Has Deep State won?
Q posted on Feb 1st. https://qanon.pub Mueller needs to be done before things start popping so they can’t say Trump is interfering with the investigation.
A lot of interesting things are happening actually. Wells Fargo’s online banking and mobile app are unusable today after military drill involving helicopters landing on the street in the vicinity of the Wells Fargo Building in Los Angeles. Military personnel seen carrying something coming from the direction of the building towards the helicopters. Just a drill I suppose? If so it’s an interesting coincidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slCN7oz-420
It’s an astonishing drill actually. I’ve never seen or heard of anything quite like that.
There was a drill scheduled. That might not be a bad cover for anti-cabal activities though.
That was just practice for the Venezuela invasion.
Jean,
The point is that how these academics “fit” is often more important than the quality of their reaearch. Acedemics often find ways to make themselves “fit” aka selling themselves out. I know almost nothing about Lott but maybe more than Wobblie does. I don’t hold it against Lott that he “failed” to become a tenured professor at Chicago or Yale or any other place on the list…
If Wobblie disagrees with the research then he should disagree with some aspect of the research instead of trying to downgrade a person. As far as I know Wobblie is not a
pro-bono-gossip-columnist. Hard to know for sure.
Yeah, sad. I’m sure if the USA invaded Venezuela it would be just like that. Just pop in, grab the secret plans and pop out. Mission accomplished.
JH, as you pointed out I’m sure Lott makes more money on TV than engaging in academic research. Steve T.’s point about bringing up Lott’s “research” had to do with gun ownership and the right to carry concealed weapons. Both of which Lott is an active proponent of. MM column was on the need for universal background checks. Steve T, citing Lott stated, “Universal background checks cannot happen, unless there is universal registration.” According to the wikipedia page on the man, ” Lott argued that allowing adults to carry concealed weapons significantly reduces crime in America” and that “Lott argues in both More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns that defensive gun use (DGU) is underreported, noting that in general, only shootings ending in fatalities are discussed in news stories. In More Guns, Less Crime, Lott writes that “[s]ince in many defensive cases a handgun is simply brandished, and no one is harmed, many defensive uses are never even reported to the police.” So I was curious about who has had guns brandished at them. My experiences have always been of people trying to intimidate me into stopping the exercise of my rights-scab hearders, power utility gun thugs and private “security guards” jump to mind. If you go to his web site, he seems to think it is a good thing for people to pull guns on their fellow citizens, wondering what others thought. I don’t think much of the man or his ideas.
Although a majority of Americans are in favor of universal background checks, a majority of them also do not vote. When they do vote, universal background checks may not be their highest priority. I am pretty supportive of universal background checks but I too have higher priorities so even as a very engaged voter, I would vote for a candidate who supported taxing the heck out of the rich and spending the money on addressing climate change even if they were anti universal background check.
Wobblie, I have my concealed carry permit, but have the sense to never carry in normal civil society. That Lott guy’s fucking nuts. Every road rage, every rude encounter has the potential to be a deadly force incident. I use my permit for ease of procurement and cover with the pigs. I’ll keep my ass outta jail and my powder dry for the day we have to actually shoot back at these trumptard tools of the billionaire class.
Shoot back at who, you dumb fuck? No one is shooting at you and you aren’t going to shoot anyone ever in your life… …bitch ass troll talking about shooting Americans? Fuck you. You aren’t shit and you aren’t ever going to be shit or do shit.
Some context on the NPR poll Trump cited as showing he had 50% support among Latinos: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-claim-that-he-has-a-50-percent-approval-rating-among-latinos
Important to remember that a large chunk of Latinos are social conservatives. Those Latino voters are his to lose. And by all accounts he has lost many. Only 27% said they would vote for Trump in 2020. And only 22% approve of his job as president.
HW should know better than to rely on the president’s tweets for accurate information. It’s he who is delusional. I mean HW. But Trump too. Of course.
“Every road rage, every rude encounter has the potential to be a deadly force incident.”
Really? I think it is good that you know this about yourself but I don’t think the world of concealed carriers share your confessed impulses and fears.
Things are not looking good for Trump in polling land. https://www.npr.org/2019/01/17/685539207/poll-trump-approval-down-slips-with-base
Queue HW saying polls are bullshit, forgetting that he brought the issue up.
It’s PBS’s own poll, dummy. 40% at worst and 60% at best is not bad. Racial hysterics like you try to paint the Wall as a white supremacist apocalypse but many, many Latinos disagree.
HW is against AOC and the green new deal.
Scoundrel!
And more agree with me.
22% approval rating from the same poll HW…
Yeah, from October! Derf
Ff, I’d agree with you. Most concealed carry folks I’ve meet in course of training and infiltrating have been utterly clueless about the implications of carrying. Anyone doing so immediately creates a situation where they will have no choice but to use deadly force in many scenarios. Personally, I’m not willing to be judge, jury and executioner against my fellow proletariat victim of systematic repression who demands my wallet or keys out of desperation. But they swallow that right wing propaganda pitting us workers against each other just as willingly as you. Oh, and your simplistic psychological ploys are fucking hilarious!
Hw, save your exclamation points and caps outrage for Roger Stone, Pat Robertson, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, etc., all of whom have explicitly threatened illegal, unconstitutional, treasonous violent insurrection in the event Agent Orange is legally impeached. Any Americans who violently turn against the Constitution will deserve what comes to them.
I guess you have to back that opinion up with quotes or it is worth what? I’m not that wild about some of those characters you mentioned so I don’t see the point. I doubt anything they said is as bad as what you say anyways.
John Brown,
I don’t understand what you mean when you say I am using “simplistic psychological ploys”. Can you break it down for me?
Are you trying to say that I am trying to make you seem crazy by repeating what you said? Correct me where I am wrong: You said you do not carry, despite having a permit, because you do not want to turn your everyday occurrences, like road rage and rudeness, into a deadly encounter.
I am simply saying it is good that you know that about yourself but that your impulses and fears are, in my opinion, not normal for the average concealed carrier.
Please explain what I am missing or where I am mischaracterizing, John Brown.
It is normal enough that it would be worth not allowing people to carry guns in public, imho.
Actually, I think we need to start talking about banning guns entirely or at least bring it up in the context of that stupid border wall. Our threat is not from brown people south of the border. Our threat is from white men with guns in the USA. I get it that gun issue is very complex and nuanced but alas, not too many Americans can handle nuance.
In my opinion we should strive, as a community, to be more and more nuanced in our usage of false dichotomies.
FF, do you even know what a false dichotomy is? I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Perhaps you would like to elaborate?
“Our threat is not from brown people south of the border. Our threat is from white men with guns in the USA.”–Lynne
Obi Lynne Kenobi ahahahaha!
“These are not the criminals you are looking for…”
FF, I did not intend that to be a dichotomy. Obviously there are other threats besides brown people from south of the border and American born white men. It is a fact though that American born white men are the biggest threat to other Americans. Certainly the biggest threat in terms of regular crime but also the biggest terrorist threat. If the objective of a wall is to make us safer, it seems silly to ignore the larger threats but especially the largest threat. One possible way out of many that we can do right now is to look at our gun laws. Another possible way is to look at why white men feel so entitled to be shitty to everyone else.
Keep building that racist, sexist rationale. It will help your candidates win in future elections. Not that many people see how great it is yet but you can make it happen I know it.
I have no doubts that you use fallacious reasoning unintentionally, Lynne. Your intent does not change the fact that you use fallacious reasoning.
Let’s assume you did not mean to say what you said. Let’s assume that, despite what you said, you think that white american men with guns are one threat amongst many threats. Let’s also assume, despite it being a highly debatable claim, that white american men with guns are truly the biggest threat to our society. There is still a false dichotomy on the level of proposed practical action. That is, the false dichotomy you are using is the false notion that putting resources and policy toward a lesser threat necessarily results in “ignoring” (your word not mine) the greater threats. In fact, if protecting from threats is our mission then we ought to try to address all the threats with the appropriate amount of resources.
Tell me: What was your purpose behind proposing that we start looking at gun control laws *against* border security policy?
FF is the smartest guy in the room. Er, comments section.
Schooling us on a Friday night no less.
FF, do we have infinite resources? No we do not. Therefore it seems prudent to direct the resources we have towards the greater threats first, does it not? The border wall is foolish in many ways, only one of which is that it directs a lot of resources towards something (people crossing the border in those places where there currently is no fence or wall) that will not increase our safety.
Sad, yes. Smartest person in the comments section *cough*
Lynne,
You ask me about prudent resource allocation, as if I didn’t just say: “In fact, if protecting from threats is our mission then we ought to try to address all the threats with the appropriate amount of resources.”
You said it is a fact that “white men are the biggest threat”.
I am assuming you meant to say mass shooting (which really do seem to be perpetrated predominantly by white males) are the biggest death threat after heart disease, cancer, injury, lung disease, accidents, stroke, alzheimer disease, diabetes, influenza, drug overdose, kidney disease, poisoning, suicide, autos, falling, alcohol, murder without regard to race and gender, **assault by guns without regard to race and gender**, suffocation, walking, motorcycles, drowing, fire, airplane, stabbing without regard to race or gender, forces of nature, choking, bicycles, police, accidental gunshot.
About 300 immigrants per year die in the trek from Mexico to US during illegal border crossings alone….
Here is the thing Lynne. Your big crime is not just your continual use of fallacious reasoning. Your crime is using fallacious reasoning to effectively spread false narratives that are built on your own gross bias and misassumptions.
White men are the demographic that represents the greatest criminal threat to others in this country. Most violent crime is committed by white men. If we are just talking about terrorism, and I do consider mass shootings to be terrorism, then American born white men are our nation’s biggest threat. It is also true that things like heart disease, cancer, and other health issues are even bigger threats to Americans. So yeah, in addition to universal background checks and rolling back stand-your-ground laws and other sorts of gun control, universal health care is another thing that should be a bigger priority to our nation than building a useless wall. I figure that patriarchal issues that cause so much male violence are already getting resolved albeit slowly. Possibly climate change is the real biggest threat. Wouldn’t it be nice if the white people who voted for this racist wall were willing to devote resources towards dealing with climate change, universal healthcare, and gun control in proportion with the actual benefit we get? Instead we are wasting money on the military and considering wasting money building a wall we don’t need. If your argument is that we should conduct some return-on-investment analysis and then spend money proportionally to threats, my argument that money spent on gun control is better spent than money spent on the border wall is consistent with that line of thinking.
Also, fwiw, talking about fallacious reasoning when you don’t really seem to have a good grasp on the concept doesn’t really help your argument.
Lynne,
As an aside: First, since I am assuming you are in favor of gun control to be applied across the board without regard to race, then why do keep racializing the gun control issue by pointing out you beleive that white men pose the biggest threat to gun violence? Second, and this is also a side issue/ question, isn’t a good idea when you choose to commenting on gun violence by race to account for the rate of violence for the demographics you are cutting out? Third, and this is also an aside, I was surprised to recently find out that the rate of mass shootings is not nearly disproportionately committed by white males as I had previously thought. In fact, depending on how one defines “mass shooting”, as some stats are compiled using shooting of 3, 4, or more people, white men actually are disproportionately less likely to commit a mass shooting. Anyway that stuff really is beside the point.
I think it is silly to announce, as you have done, what is and is not the biggest threat, because you, on the one hand, do not seem to want to even try to account for interventions that are already in place to prevent some of these threats; on the other hand, you are all too willing to assume that interventions in gun control will result in the effect you intend.
So you can say white men are our greatest threat and it would be true if you are narrowly comparing domestic terrorism numbers to terrorism numbers from the outside occurring on our soil. Such a comparison however does not account for “threat level” at all because it fails to account for real countermeasures against those threats. In terms of gun control there is relatively no counter measures. I imagine we spend billions in counter-foreign-terrorism threat prevention. It is debatable if that is money well spent.
Likewise, it is easy to say border security is useless. However, we already have 700 miles of physical barrier **intervention** that people of all different colors supported in the past. I suppose you could argue Obama’s black half did not support that stuff while his white half did, but again what is your point in racializing every issue in such an inaccurate way? When assessing **the threat** and need of border security you seem to be willing to simultaneously fail to account for the already in place counter measures while also failing to see the need to account for interventions and their effect on **the threat** in the first place.
You judge physical barriers to be useless. On what grounds? An acceptable amount of deaths amongst immigrants making the trek? An acceptable amount of rape amongst female immigrants making the trek? An acceptable of drugs crossing the border? The right amount of children trafficked? The correct amount of pre-border crossing extortion from cartels?
Lastly, I don’t understand what sorts of arguments fit within the different categories of fallacy? Fine, what sort of fallacy would you say you were you committing when you said “Our threat is not brown people south of the border. Our threat is white men born in the USA”?
:)
Lynne, don’t forget that the wall is nothing more than an Orwellian manipulation of Agent Oranges base, a distraction from his treason, and an excuse to do direct damage to the Govt through his shutdowns. Don’t engage with them as if it’s a serious proposition. Prepare for the armed portion of the fascist to use the guns they’ve been hoarding on the ungodly libtards.
Don’t waste too many key strokes on these delusional bums.
It’s so cute when FF breaks down Obama into a white half and a black half in a pseudo Mendelian way when he really knows that race in America is shorthand for us or not us. NOP. Not our people. I’m going to bet that the Obama black half is not all black with some dilution by a not so distant white male ancestor, so that really, Obama is more white than black when the two halves are averaged out over the whole. Therefore according to FF, Obama is a white president, unless we apply the one drop rule, which makes him black, or at least not white, and NOP. That rule even selectively applies to other races. Note that Tiger Woods is celebrated as a black golfer, and not as a Thai or Asian golfer. However Naomi Osaka is promoted as a Japanese tennis player who seems to be “the one” who will eclipse Serena Williams, a black American woman. American media seems to forget that Osaka’s father is Haitian American and that Osaka herself grew up in New York and Florida and is also an American citizen. It’s just not as good a story to tell that that black women are dominant forces in American tennis.
“Sad
FF is the smartest guy in the room. Er, comments section.”
Were you serious? Tell us what you learned from FF’s intelliegence, please, SAD.
Thanks, Dirty Peter Larson for trying to start trouble between people in the community and me by attributing statements not made by me to my nickname here on this blog. That’s very honorable and it takes tremendous intelligence and wisdom.
NotHW,
Nothing you said rings true in any sort of way. I was ridiculing Lynne’s constant, strained and inaccurate attempts to racialize every issue. I was trying to make a joke when I was splitting Obama into two different people of different races with different political agendas. The reason I was did something so silly was because I was trying to mirror the silliness that Lynne displays when she falsely identifies White-man-ness to be essentially tied to pro physical barrier, pro gun, anti environment, and so on….
NotHW,
I don’t follow golf and tennis so I am surprised to hear that people celebrate the Japanese side of tennis player beating the African American sides of a tennis players. I am also surprised to hear that people celebrate the black side of Tiger winning. If this is all true then do you think there are any black tennis fans, who happen to also be racist against Asian people, who celebrate when the Asian side of Tiger loses in golf?
Are you a big golf and tennis fan? Where can one go to witness these types of celebrations? Maybe Lynne knows?
The representatives of the party that is all that Lynne is not in support of seem to be largely made up of white men, at least on TV during the SOTU address.
“…nothing more than an Orwellian manipulation of Agent Oranges base, a distraction from his treason, and an excuse to do direct damage to the Govt…”
“Don’t waste too many key strokes on these delusional bums.”
EXACTLY! For two years, Mark Maynard continues to be confounded by Trump’s game. So he continues to scurry in the endless zone of shit that trails behind Trump, from one outrageous turd to the next, and drags them all here to build a putrid monument to Trump out of what used to be a good blog. Yes Mark, do you realize you’re building a monument to Trump? And now I’ve said “Trump” five times, in five sentences, on this shit blog, when I could have been doing something important. What an idiot I am.
JB and Lynne,
Following George Lakoff’s rules for non engagement makes more sense if you also happen to be right. Even Lakoff seems to be self-aware of the dangers of following his rules dogmatically.
Why not just try engaging with truth and struggle with facts rather than following rules of strategic avoidance and propaganda?
Serious question for all of you: Am I wrong about you guys are intentionally following Lakoff’s rules and strategies? I have assumed it was true for a long time now but I never bothered to ask directly. If so, do you not see how problematic it might be?
Wow. That was timely Stupid Hick.
Am I wrong?
Anonymous,
So you got the sense that Lynne’s was putting forth a critique of the lack of diversity amongst our GOP representatives?
LOL (for real).
In my impartial opinion, Frosted Flakes is among the top 10 smartest white men in this room.
FF, I don’t know, I mostly just skim your recent comments because I think you might be losing your mind. Let me be clear that the trail of Trump shit is NOT fake shit, it is genuine TRUMP BRAND shit, for which Trump and his execrable enablers deserve to be removed from office ASAP. What I am saying is rehashing Trump’s bowel movements is not Mark’s strength as a blogger, it’s futile and only making him sick, and it’s clear he’s learned nothing about politics during the past two years.
Yeah. I am starting to lump FF in with HW as hopelessly delusional. Especially about their racism and sexism and the negative effects they have on tbe nation.
I have a lot of hope though. The white men around here are not like those guys at all. Especially the younger ones.
Young Californians probably think it is novel (and useful) that a middle aged white lady from the midwest is willing to blatantly make stuff up without any orientation to the truth whatsoever because her willingneess to express misrepresentations and state misassumptions happen to support their agenda in an indirect way.
That is, Lynne is the equivalent of a smoke grenade in a military operation. I guess I am glad you found your niche, Lynne…
Lynne is mentally ill. What racism and sexism? She is one of several people on here who are openly racist and sexist.
Question: Do the people who comment here regularly have jobs? Or are they getting by on SSI? Trust funds? I don’t see how people have time for all this. I certainly don’t have time to read all the comments here.
How long do you think it takes to type a couple of lines once in a while?
Yeah.
Especially is you don’t put any thought into what you’re saying?
Plus we are warriors, social justice etc. it’s our duty. The destiny of the republic is at stake.
Is that your role, sad? Trying to degrade meaning itself with thoughtlessness and half-baked sarcasm. That’s great.
Back on topic. Here’s two gun Craigslist-y sites where any nutjob can buy a majorly mass murder gun no questions asked. Universal background checks are a no brainier, unless you profit from flipping guns….
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?249-Long-Guns-For-Sale
http://www.armslist.com/classifieds/michigan/rifles
Meaning? The stuff you talk about – secret indictments, Trump the Hero and the plight of white men to escape the racism that’s keeping them down- this is the ultimate in meaningless gibberish. You should be pleased that anyone responds at all.
Now if you want to talk about AOC and getting stuff done against the actual enemy bring it on.
I mean that figuratively. I really don’t have the time you deserve. But don’t stop on my account.
I don’t ever remember HW talking about anything like “the plight of white men to escape the racism that’s keeping them down.”
I think you are making that up Sad.
Yeah, I never said that shit. Everything these people say is a lie. I don’t see how the sealed cases are secret. You can verify some 75,000 of them yourself on pacer.gov. Whether President Trump goes down in history as the greatest President ever or a villain like you think he is remains to be seen. I’ve seen plenty of heroics from my vantage point but you don’t see any. Who will be justified in the end?
It is meaningless gibberish what you said there sad-sack. That’s true. Don’t you people understand when you lie about your opponent it only makes your argument weaker than it already is?
Regarding Occasional Cortex and the GND I think the President is onto something. You could really make significant inroads into young voters everywhere with this great plan and probably win back the White House and Senate!
Donald J. Trump
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!
3:21 PM – 9 Feb 2019
“It would be deeply unfair to claim that most Republicans are bigots. But it *is* fair to say that most Republicans today are willing to tolerate without dissent, and in many cases enthusiastically support, a man whose appeal is based in large part on stoking racial and ethnic resentments, on attacking ‘the other.’ That has to be taken into account.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/i-left-gop-because-trump/581965/
PS HW– More hyperbole and reductive binary stupidity from Trump. The Green New Deal was a statement of purpose, a vision for the future; no bills, no policy directive. Most of us agree with parts, but not all of it. It was comprehensive and moved the political discourse leftward, which was desperately needed. And whihc few other Dems have managed. And that scares the crap out of the right. It’s powerful. And it’s power relies on hope not bigotry. At least we Dems know when an idea is aspirational v a mandate for immediate action by any means necessary asap.
The Green New Deal gaining traction is certainly giving me hope. AOC is too. I admit that I was skeptical of her at first. She is proving herself though. I can’t wait to see what she is going to do.
HW you and FF were defending that Sandman punk with his buddies doing the tomahawk chop and taunting Mr. Phillips. Didn’t you two posit that the little white boy was the victim of the incident? That the media was showing anti – white bias?
Now Sandman is suing Phillips. It’s repulsive.
Did you see AOC with the contribution lightening round? She’s kickin ass. Old white men everywhere are freakin out. And it’s only been two months. Maybe she’ll be like Dingell and put in 50 years? It’s encouraging to have a Democrat who won’t be restrained by “reality “.
I thought a Trump would at least deliver on infrastructure.
What a derp!
Sandman did absolutely nothing wrong. He handled Nathan’s inexplicable aggression fine. I said nothing about (the one kid?) doing the ‘chop’. I don’t understand doing that but I’m not sure it was meant as taunting. I think lying is disgusting which is what you are doing. The group was cheering Nathan and singing with him. What is wrong with you? Why don’t you condemn the hate preachers? Why not be honest about what Nathan did? On video! Everyone has seen it and acknowledges that now. Only a few people like you are holding on.
“Didn’t you…posit that the little white boy was the victim of the incident? That the media was showing anti – white bias?”
Obviously it was an anti-white male, anti-Trump smear by Nathan with the hate preachers looming behind him that the media were too happy to run with. Now they have acknowledged how wrong they were to do that. Why do you say little white boy as a pejorative if you aren’t anti-white male?
“a statement of purpose, a vision for the future; no bills, no policy directive.”
How does that impact the President’s statement? He said it would be great for them to press forward and implement it.
Was I wrong HW? Don’t you think white men are getting treated poorly? If I misunderstood you I apologize.
The things Trump says are meaningless. He also said he’d be glad to take the blame for the shut down. He lies.
Only two more years.
Whew.
I think scumbags like a bunch of people on here and Nathan are trying to vilify white males. That’s all I ever said. With a teeny little bit of reflection it should be obvious. It’s not working so I don’t think it rises to the level of a “plight.”
Look at all the “racist white male” hoaxes that Bark and the rest of you have bitten on for example. I notice none of you have commented on the Jussie Smollett incident. How could you lay off that one unless you are starting to recognize this pattern and don’t want to get burned again?
HW– You just validated SAD’s statements about you. The one’s you challenged him to back up.
You lost. And you gave up the game.
I’m not moaning about some plight so no, I didn’t lose. I’m saying you hate white males. That’s all. It’s true. You should stick to your guns and be like “Yup, I do hate the white male. That’s right.” This squirrelly shit isn’t working.
Why would we comment on Jussie Smollett? No one has brought it up. Do you have a conspiracy theory about that one too?
Oh I see, right wing sources are saying it’s a false claim. Could be, but we don’t know for sure yet, as far as I can tell. It’s all hearsay and speculation… again. We have no idea. We’ll see in time. Your confidence is once again premature and unfounded, HW.
HW– It’s amusing that you think someone could function successfully in this world with open hatred of white males.
I’m saying how could you (collectively Jean, not you specifically; I see you know nothing about it) possibly resist bringing up a juicy story like that unless you sense it is false?
Jean, I smoke you every time you address any kind of issue with me. The pattern has played out so many times it’s pitiful. For you to try to knock my confidence is ridiculous.
“HW– It’s amusing that you think someone could function successfully in this world with open hatred of white males.”
Why should I care about you saying that?
I worry about the white men out there who cant see why Nick Sandmann’s behavior is wrong. Is he really suing Phillips? SMH. I hope he not only loses but gets ordered to pay punative damages for bringing a frivilious lawsuit. Dang. I also know that it will not be good for tjis kid when he goes job hunting. His infamy is a pretty big liability to any company who hires him. It is sad watching that kid ruin his life.
I can’t believe there are real people who actually think this way. White men can’t just stand in the USA smiling while someone beats a drum in their face according to you. Specifically what actions do you think Sandmann did, Lynne?
HW, he stood in his face while smirking and while the rest of his group were openly mocking him. Now he has become a symbol of the sense of undeserved entitlement so many white men seem to have. Giving me hope of course is talking to young white men hers. Not one of them doesnt understand why Sandmann’s behavior was a problem.
You are confused, HW, in conflating many people’s distaste for traditional racial determinism and gender roles broadly with hating white men. The objective of ending white supremacist and patriarchal notions is broadly humanist not anti-any group or sex. https://www.makers.com/videos/5c5cce259014370b11527b79?fbclid=IwAR0hqUacND6YD9KfptYpfpCUXWVJuoXuO5l3xOXDC8x9nHp-ZpHoB9Oq_M8
It’s right in the video they cheered FOR him clear as day. When he got into Sandmann’s face no one knew wtf was going on also right in the vid. What are you on? Have you watched the two hour video or not?
If you merely have distaste for a concept why does it externalize as contempt for white men and boys? You try to smear a genetic profile. Like FF said about bigot logic you rationalize that the white males in your ideological camp aren’t like the vile white boys that make up the majority. It’s just like what racist people say about how not all ***** people are ******, only most of them. Some are tolerable.
You are ignoring the existing power structure, HW. When all things are truly equal, then what you say holds true. But talking about various forms of privilege based on random characteristics is not bigotry. Trying to level the playing field to eliminate those privileges is also not bigotry.
I’ve spent some time in my life among the very very rich, and I can assure you that privilege is toxic.(There’s are also psychological and sociological studies to back me up) It’s not hatred to want to dismantle it.
re the Green New Deal. Bi-partisan support in the vast majority. You were wrong again HW: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/the-green-new-deal-has-strong-bipartisan-support/
How am I ignoring the existing structure? I’ve answered just about everything you have asked me. You haven’t answered a ton of my questions. You just slink away and hope it goes down the memory hole. You support the eugenics program of Margaret Sanger just like you know who so how can you try to say I am ignoring institutional white supremacy? It’s people like you who support the most destructive form of it and I point that out.
Some of my best friends are white men *snort*
Seriously though, privilege is toxic and leads the privileged to often feel entitled to things they don’t feel the less privileged are entitled to. Cisgendered heterosexual ablebodied Christian economically advantaged men are usually the ones displaying this simply because they are the ones who have the most privilege in the first place.
Jean, it says right in your article 82% have heard nothing about it. Only 3% have heard “a lot.”
What are you snorting?! Jeez, man…this shit is fucked up…reading Lynne’s posts out loud is hilarious hahahaha…
Notice Lynne didn’t answer about watching the whole vid. I can’t imagine being so ignorant. Literally ignoring the reality that even the media acknowledged. Phillips and his sidekick and the hate preachers were the aggressors. Sandmann handled it fine. Obviously none of them even thought to attack him like he claimed. Another hoax meant to smear Trump and supporters…
thought to attack Phillips of course
I dont answer your questions HW because I rarely even read what you write. I really dont think you usually have much of value to say, much like FF rarely has anything of value to add to the conversation. Mostly you two just seem to lash out and call people who challenge white male superiority names. It is, frankly, boring to me. I feel sorry for you guys because you may find that white male superiority schtick doesnt fly like it used to. Even if white men keep cheating and lying and doing whatever immoral things they do to hold onto power, in real ways it is slipping away and those who continue to act like it isnt may be in for a rude awakening as Nick Sandmann may be in for. Even if he WINS a lawsuit, he will still lose. The lawsuit makes him look like the kind of person who would use his money and power to bully someone who is more powerless in our society. He is likely to be as hated as that Martin Shkreli guy. He is going to have trouble in his life and he can either blame others and play the victim or he can accept that it was his own behavior which caused his circumstance.
This is the only video you boys need to watch
https://youtu.be/HG9Z961mhXU
Then you are ignorant. Don’t talk about me if you don’t read what I say.
HW, it really is adorable the way you seem to feel entitled to say stuff like that. Maybe you should just accept that you dont have mich valuable to say. You might be prettier if you talked less and smiled more.
HW how many Trump supporters do you think understand the complexity of Trump’s immigration policy when they decided they needed a wall? It still helped him get elected.
The study explored people’s attitudes towards climate change and action more deeply as well. You are on the losing side of history on this one.
Sad,
There is a huge difference between FF believing the media treated Sandmann (who happens to be a white male) unjustly in a particular instance, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, concluding that FF has a general worldview and stance about “the plight of white men to escape the racism that’s keeping them down.”
Understanding the composition fallacy is helpful here.
Example: Florida is flat and hot. Florida is a part of the United States. Therefore the United states is flat and hot.
In this case it the reasoning would look something like this: FF made a judgment that Sandmann was treated unjustly. Sandmann belongs to the category white and male. FF judges that white and male are treated unjustly in general because FF judged a white male was treated unjustly in a particular instance.
Do you see how stupid and dangerous employing that form of reasoning is? This form looks very much like a form of fallacious reasoning that is employed by racists…
I asked you, in the other thread, what value you saw in the Teaching Tolerance article that you offered me. You never answered. If you have time it would be cool,imo, if you told me what you thought would be helpful about that article and then I could tell you why I think it is garbage.
I don’t think that even means anything in this context; the word entitled. We are all entitled to say what we like within reasonable limits. How does it not illustrate the word ignorance perfectly to talk about people who you don’t listen to? You are talking about me but you don’t read what I write. You are talking about the students but didn’t watch what actually happened. It’s ignorance. What does pointing that out that have to do with this idea of entitlement?
Another fine post, FF.
“HW how many Trump supporters do you think understand the complexity of Trump’s immigration policy when they decided they needed a wall?”
At least they knew what he was talking about. What complexity are you speaking of that he didn’t make clear all along?
I did respond FF. The teaching tolerance article suggest we look at the situation in the context of history not just as a blank slate. Indigenous peoples are statistically more likely to be assualted. Knowing that and being surrounded by a mob of tomahawk chopping heckling young men might make Mr. Phillips fearful. Knowing the history of genocide against native peoples might also inform how we look at the situation. But you’re right. It’s open to interpretation.
I’ll stop speculating. Why don’t you just say what you think? Is Mr.Trump leading America forward? Are we becoming a more perfect union under his leadership? Are the least among us being given the opportunity to advance?
President Trump is the ultimate user of the composition fallacy.
An illegal immigrant comments a crime. Therefore our greatest threat is illegal immigrants. Apply your high faulting reasoning across the board if you’re so fond of it.
Wait, how many did the chop? I don’t think any of them heckled Nathan. They clearly cheer him when he comes up. Nathan’s sidekick started saying racially offensive things to the students and Nathan got up right in Sandmann’s face. Do you realize you are in the tiny minority of people who still think Nathan was wronged? Why don’t you condemn the hate preachers? Wtf is going on? It’s…disturbing that there are people so confused out there (around here).
But illegal immigrants do in fact commit massive crime that can be reduced greatly. Not all of them – don’t be illogical. Mr. Trump never said that.
Jean,
There is obviously a lot of wisdom and truth in that Jamil speech. Were you thinking that some of us would feel otherwise? HW is not conflating a fucking thing. HW is identifying the stupid logic of racism and sexism on open display here. I think we are more than capable of distinguishing good ideas, that lead toward making the world a better place, from the bad ideas, coming from a bunch of slowly-dying-out- old-school-left-over-smoke-grenade-bigots like we see on display at mm.com…
HW–Undocumented commit fewer crimes than citizens. Especially violent crimes. Crossing illegally is a misdemeanor offense. Overstaying visas etc is no crime at all.
You are buying the disinformation, Hw and you call us uninformed.
FF–The Jamil speech was posted in response to the assertions that wanting to dismantle the patriarchy is an expression of hatred towards men. I fully expected most of you to agree with its message.
Fewer per capita? I don’t think so. Even if that is true it is still a shitload of crime we can put a major dent in.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity
The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.
Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.
The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny.
Jamil gave a speech about how to ensure justice, equality and harmony between men and women. Jamil did so in a way that does not display bigotry at all. What she said was wonderfully accurate. Why do you think I find her message obviously true and good but find the messages of many of the ideas on here, which claim to be striving toward similar goals to so obviously false and evil?
Oh man, what I would give to let you have the opportunity to let her respond to some of your comments here…
When she talks about dismantling the patriarchy, she’s not agreeing with your perspective on things FF. Jesus, you’re a dope.
I am only familiar with this one thing by Jamil but it all seemed like good advice to me.
The funny thing is after listening to her speech/poem I was thinking Jean and Lynne are on crack if they think someone like this woman would want to hang out with them or be their buddy.
Are you thinking she is part of the “let’s kick em in the nuts” and “cut the bitches” who disagree with us type crowd? It does not seem like it to me…
Oh FF, that is just lady locker room talk! You also would be more well thought of if you were to smile more and speak less.
You bring up a good point, Lynne. It is probably safe to assume that that there are tons and tons of white-men-only-right-wing-militia-club locker rooms all across America where people are uttering phrases like “kick em in the vagina” and “stab them bitches”.
At my gym I did once see men and women performing, to music and in front of mirrors, a slightly more aggressive form of tai chi. But you and Jean probably belong to health clubs that are way more progressive than the one I belong to.
It’s not necessary to find a locker room, FF. Just drop into the comments section for any pop culture article in which the subject involves a prominent woman.
FF agrees with feminism when its tenets are put forward by a gorgeous woman who is speaking to male interests. This is not surprising, nor is it surprising that FF failed to self-examine in any way after hearing that talk.
Statements Lynne and I said (once each in very different contexts) are in no way representative of our general approach to these issues. And yet you repeat them endlessly as proof of what? All I see is your own fear and entrenched bias. You have had ample opportunity to take in our perspectives and yet insist on positioning our advocacy as violent and threatening. That’s your investment. One you should examine.
And then you posit that my posting of an aligned and effective speech by a celebrity I don’t even recognize is evidence of my desire to be celebrity validated in some way. And that you saying a celebrity I do not recognize wouldn’t want to be my friend is some kind of zinger. Ouch!
It’s hard not being condescending to men as predictable as you. You’re so insulated and dense as to be a waste of my time. And that makes you anything but unique. Let’s hope the next generation of men is salvageable.
JH. I can say that the young men I have been encountering lately are very different from many older men. They really do see things in a more feminist fashion. They also are better with abstractions and unlike FF they can tell the difference between figurative language and litetal language. I am hopeful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/opinion/sunday/border-wall-immigration-trump.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
Also, if FF is not into comments sections on the internet, being old fashioned and avoidant of such modern cultural implements, then he can simply look at the walls of any public bathroom stall. No misogyny there, I’m sure.
Anonymous,
You don’t understand.
I do think Lynne, Jean, and many from the mm.com community share the same logical processes that would be uncovered if one of us infiltrated some all-white-male-militia-club-circles. I am being serious!
I also sincerely accept your suggestion that many of the things Lynne and Jean say probably have their logical counterparts, in anonymous form, on dingy bathroom walls, probably when some drunk person is sitting on a toilet.
I really don’t see a lot of public bathroom graffiti in my life. I think it could be very instructive though in the same way that reading the comments section here is extremely instructive.
Do you have any bathroom stall messages you would like to share with us, Anonymous? We could compare and contrast against some of the comments we read here.