American, attempting wisdom

Speaking is hardly taught as a skill anymore. There is a difference in impact, in attention, in how effective one is in communicating their thoughts to another. Please, master speaking intentionally. It is an incredibly useful and powerful tool to adopt for oneself. It develops gravitas and character in person.

Don't use the bredth of the field of linguistics as an excuse to become indifferent, or worse an excuse to despise people who care about using language and voice well. That's really a self sabotaging and sad mindset to have.

The right to defend the self, the family, the community, the clan, the tribe, and the nation and the right to collect sustenance (hunt) PREDATES the US Constitution. A central and fundamental political argument throughout the world prior to colonization in the New World was about a populace being armed. While sovereigns often forbid it for the masses (especially their political opposition) the idea that tyrannical rulers could merely by declaration deprive people of their right to self defense was increasingly challenged as the Divine Right of Kings started to get replaced by government by the people. When the colonies declare independence from the English king, they also continued to hold that they had a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for hunting and defense. Again, this was even before there was a United States of America. Colonists weren’t just eventually fighting against the English but also had fought or still fought the indigenous people, the French, and the Spanish. Not to mention your run of the mill highway robber. Having guns on the frontier was basically a necessity even if guns would become less necessary in the growing cities.

As the colonists armed themselves in preparation to throw off English rule they stockpiled weapons of war. In places like Concord and Lexington Massachusetts the English who had set out from Boston would try to seize cannon, mortars, grenades, swords, muskets, and powder that the colonists had stockpiled. The colonists decided to fight back and so came the Shot Heard ‘Round the World.

When the colonists abandon the Articles of Confederation with the formation of a new union as the United States of America (under the United States Constitution), they would declare a prohibition against the central (federal) government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms for collective defense. (No more Lexingtons and Concords.) What doesn’t get talked about much is that it was really just a prohibition against government action by the central government. Not a declaration of an individual right to defense. The reason is, of course, there were a lot of rights that were not enumerated in the US Constitution but still widely accepted at the time. The right to procreate is not mentioned in the US Constitution for example. Yet we have that right. That’s where the ninth and tenth amendments come in.

But as the United States grew, and as the power of the central government increased, it became clear that having different states see the fundaments of the Union too differently would not work. The Fourteenth amendment would in essence nationalize the rights of the people—and beyond just the white male land owners. It’s here that what was once a prohibition against the central government that the Second Amendment morphed into protecting an individual right to collective defense within the several states. A right that previously had already been assumed.

As standing armies became a thing the weapons of war were kept more and more by the governments and less and less by the People—though personal firearms would continue to be a fixture of American life. Just as people took for granted the right to procreate, for example, so too would they take for granted a right to keep and bears arms for self defense and defense of kith and kin.

What you see here is a short version of reality. There’s more and it’s complicated. But Americans at large are not fond of subtle differences and complexities or of having to know a lot of details. They want simple. Nowadays instead of recognizing the complexities even the US Supreme Court has cobbled together a rationale for gun ownership that isn’t entirely faithful to the actual history. (SCOTUS likes to ignore the ninth and tenth amendments.) So what we get today is a simplistic equation. Second Amendment equals individual right to keep and bear arms for defense. Even with that now clunky, dangling modifier of “a well-regulated militia.” People have largely forgotten that the second amendment was originally intended to apply to weapons of war. Cannon, mortars, grenades, muskets, swords, powder, etc. And challenges about that have been few. But that’s how you get a well-armed populace that has not much to do with a militia. If things were “twisted” it’s nowhere as bad as it could be if the masses argued they should be protected in their right to keep and bear the weapons of war that are weapons of mass destruction (explosive devices, nuclear weapons, and such).

A responsible adult capable of making desicions based on their own knowledge and experience, and a full awareness that things are also influenced by things they don't know about, will take this non-answer and think "alright, if missing just one dose will undo all my progress, I will not waste my money. And if missing just one dose will kill me, I will not risk my life", and they won't take the meds.

There's no transcendence at home. All the great works of art, philosophy, literature, beauty, wonder, and transportation of the soul are all not-the-thing-alive.

That takes a guru. There's no one to imitate in all the great works. Sure there's profundity, enough for a thousand lifetimes, but not what is needed, not what is missing.

This comic is not nearly as smart as it thinks it is. There was a reason why westerners leaving the west to seek enlightenment became a meme so long ago everyone who got it started is long dead became a thing. Christianity is super fucked. Everything else is material or intellectually abstract. It's not peopley. People really need peopley things. Awakening from like anything other than human connections is rare, fake and incredibly overcomplicated.

There's some dumb fake pretentious shit out there, but I've done years of the thousand lifetimes and it's trivial in comparison with minutes spent with the right person in the right situation at the right time.

Everyone should own a slice of the pie, UBI is the right idea. Everyone should get a monthly check as part of the taxation of the wealthy.

Block voting red vs blue meme war is exactly how we get the inability to solve any problems with discussion and understanding which is how the pervasive other othering and paranoia propaganda takes root which is exactly how we get into violent conflict which is exactly how personal freedom and the liberal experiment of an egalitarian society will end, and with nuclear weapons, probably global civilization.

You know what this sounds like to the other side?

"I don't care if the current democrats aren't pure enough."

Vote for all our crazy people, obviously, but also vote for the possibility reasonable people too.

You put a lot of people on the right into a position where voting down ballot for the evangelical extremists is the defensive move against the "having black friends is racism probably" people on the left. (No one probably believes that but it sounds that insane from the other side)

Like this is just Not Smart ™️.

Telling people to be more short sighted and lazy when political problems are right at the edge is Not Good Advice.

Don't be retarded by choice in your politics please.

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e)

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.0% of women experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 14.2% of women experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*4,774,000 women have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*17,091,000 women have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.8% of men experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 18.0% of men experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*5,452,000 men have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*20,471,000 men have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

*Table 6

By the data presented by the Center for Disease Control, out of the estimate of 10,226,000 yearly victims of intimate partner violence, 53.3% of victims where male and 46.6% were female. As for psychological aggression, out of the estimate of 37,562,000 yearly victims, 54.4% were male and 45.5% were female. These statistics would support the claim made in the bottom left.

Now I couldn’t find a primary source for the 70% of DV is initiated by women, but here’s the facts that I found, which may have been interpreted by the people who made this poster:

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html) -Women who were in a battered women’s shelter, 67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year.

This can be interpreted as “67% of violent couples with IPV is mutual”. But then again, primary sources and full data would be helpful to back up this claim.

But the one that is most interesting is:(http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=111137)(Another report analysis from the CDC)

-23.9% of relationships are violent -50.3% of IPV is non-reciprocal and 49.7% is reciprocal (Reciprocal IPV= Mutual violence) -70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV is initiated by women. 

The list of studies is now up to 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews). Not only did he send me that list, but he also sent me two meta-studies (also in the dropbox folder).  One is on male/female perpetration rates and the other is on male/female victimization rates. 

There is also “Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review“.  It’s a mouthful to be sure. Basically this study took the data from 48 other empirical studies, collated the data, placed it online for public viewing, submitted it for peer review, and was found to be accurate. 

It’s findings basically wind down to this:

84% of relationships are non-violent

58% of relationships that are violent, both partners abuse the other.

28% of violent relationships only the woman is violent

14% of violent relationships only the man is violent.

This is featured Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project website and is part of a much larger DV research project.  You can read the summarized findings here or take a gander at the full 61-page review.  This is a compilation of the research of Erin Pizzey, Murray Strauss, Don Dutton, and many others who are challenging the feminist model of patriarchal dominance. They also have some videos that are very informative as well.

Murray Strauss also compiled: Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.  A report detailing the existence of over 200 studies showing gender symmetry in victimization rates. Studies that show symmetry going as far back as 1975.  He also examines the methods feminist researchers have used to suppress the evidence from public discourse, hence the title “Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence”.

Two other excellent and brief videos on the topic come from the MenAreGood YouTube channel:

Male Victims of Domestic Violence - The Hidden Story

Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

Do you not see how this is abusive and toxic? Do you really not see it at all? Like, at all?

I'm not Gen X persay, but here's how men feel. Yall a miserable harradans to be with, a literal chronic source of unhappiness.

Unbearably awful human beings. You'll use your own children as weapons of abuse and control to attack men with, sickening. Literally use the government to force a man never to see his own kids again.

Naw. You don't get to have it both ways.

A man being involved with his kids is absolutely your responsibility. You have the control and choice, he doesn't. The only control he has is to not get attached, to minimize how much that bond can be used against him.

Name one thing a man has actual control over when it comes to his kids.

With that cleared up, you don't get to act like fatherhood is a fair game. It's not, it's above and beyond. Maybe in some idealized fantasy world where men are allowed to be equal participants in parenting. But a good parent has NEVER been the bare minimum. Absolutely useless mothers still get praised for their strong independence for spending hard earned child support on themselves while the kids go to school in shoes that are falling apart and hand-me-downs two sizes too small.

Your concept of what the standard is, or where the bar is so completely and utterly broken it is actively difficult to even explain it to you in a way you might be able to hear.

If you want a partner, and a man at his best in fatherhood you better fucking respect and value the effort and care he put into what he does and who he is. If you want to know what the standard is, where the bar is actually set, and what should be expected for people without constant praise, there you go.

The strong independence that women are praised for isn't even the standard for men, and it's not like parenting basics are reached without praise for women. Unbelievably high my ass.

No one goes onto national television and talks about how stunning and brave single fathers are making ends meet with their own two hands to put kids through college, yet we both know the opposite sentiment gets regular airtime and standing ovations on occasion.

Stop. Stop with the self pitying mind games and double standards and delusional representations of what the gender dynamics are really like. The biggest barrier between healthy and sustainable equality and personal lifestyle freedom is the absolutely gargantuan Hindenburg of self serving female ego and self deception on this topic.

And don't clap back at me with patriarchy enforcing abortion, that is absolutely women driven on the other side. The politicians might be male, but it's absolutely their wives driving the issue at the forefront of culture on the right.

get yourself a USB stick from any dollar store, install ubuntu with persistent storage on it. There is literally no reason not to, and it means that you now have a little computer of your very own that no one except those who physically get their hands on your USB stick can use (and you can password lock the OS) and that you can run from literally almost any PC with USB ports. Including public machines in libraries and, probably, school laptops.