Guns, Games, 'n Tiddies

The edit is passed around so much people forgot there was an original. But yeah, the intention is clearly “how would men like it if they were treated/approached like this, unprompted?” The key word being: unprompted, and in a way where the recipient can feel uncomfortable. It can happen, and people are right to feel bad if it does indeed make them so.

Are a lot of men so deprived of love that a simple compliment can be burned in their memories like a campfire in a long bitter winter? Absolutely. But I don’t think all men like all compliments, and depending on how it can be said it can feel awful.

Heck we don’t even have to pretend like men cant receive unnecessary “affection” or be hit on. Examples like the Target guy and male celebrities (both old and especially young) have been on the receiving end of women who are honestly disgusting in how they try to get with them. Unfortunately for men there’s this societal belief that they always want this sort of thing and so they’re “fair game”, no matter how dehumanizing or personally uncomfortable the treatment.

And going back to the original comic: yes, women can feel this too. Catcalling isn’t always fun for the receiver, and I don’t think it’s fair to make this a black and white thing or to compare scars so as to see who’s bigger or more neglected. If the state of the world is to go by, it’s that the greatest mistake ever committed was that assuming nobody outside our own demographic can feel pain - or that we must always be on the offensive when it comes to discussing our pain whatever it may be.

I don't know about you, but I would consider that a direct attack on my person.

It fucking doesn’t.

When I started dating my current boyfriend we talked for 6 hours on our first date and 7 hours on our second. We talked about a shit ton of different topics, and one of those topics was politics and the #metoo movement. We talked about sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Every step along the way towards us having sex he asked for my consent. The first day we actually had sex he made sure I was ready and checked in on me several times to make sure I was still enjoying myself. He was amazing.

I had men who were trying to flirt with me grab at me before I even knew who they were. I’ve had creepy old men decide giving me a shoulder massage while I was sitting down the perfect way they could introduce themselves. That is the type of touching we want to stop.

Any of the guys that are scared off by women saying “don’t touch us unless we ask” are the exact type of guys that need to learn about consent, women’s bodily autonomy and personal space.

If you are concerned that becoming friends with a women in the Me Too era will read to someone accusing you of sexual harassment, you need to rethink how you interact with women.

I have a bunch of guy friends, and none of them are afraid I’m going to accuse them of anything. Do you know why? We are friends. We treat each other with respect. Any of them can hug me goodbye or put their arm around me and I know they won’t touch me inappropriately. But when we first met that wasn’t true. We built a friendship of trust.

I am a hugger, I like hugging people. My friends know this about me, but when I meet new people I always ask them if it is okay that I hug them. I have had people say no, and I respect that and do not hug them.

My job, my MILITARY JOB, straight up said “it doesnt matter what your intention is. It’s how she takes it”. He (the HR trainer) openly admitted that you can be written up for sexual harrassment/assault even if you technically did nothing wrong. Because it’s more about her feelings.

We literally had a case where an employee invited everyone in the office to karaoke after work. And because he asked a female employee alone in the breakroom to habg out (with others) after work, she took that as flirting. As a date request. And reported him. It didnt matter that other employees, including female ones, admitted they were asked as well. It didnt matter that it wasnt one on one. It didnt matter that he treated everyone equally. Because she felt uncomfortable, he was investigsted and written up.

Since your anonymous anecdotal internet evidence is enough for your argument, the internet is FULL of stories of men being falsely accused and punished unfairly.

I had a classmate in college be hugged by a woman. He didnt put his arms around her (reciprocating) or anything. But because she felt like he did, she felt that he grazed her breast whole hugging, she reported him. My school cares more about its image than it does the truth. So they pulled him out of class for a semester and investigated the incident. Witnesses admitted that he didnt touch her, but the damage was done. The whole school knew he was being investigated for sexual assault, and women avoided him. He lost friends, wasnt invited out anymore, and possible lost out on job opportunities (speculation. Job Fairs at the school have access to students who were written up for bad behavior).

A handshake that goes a second or two too long, a smile that’s taken the wrong way, an accidental brush of the shoulder in the hallway, a random compliment you would give to any coworker, a common shoulder tap, etc. They’ve all become dangerous.

You do not need bad intentions to be accused. You dont have to do anything wrong at all to be punished. And since accusations from women against men are taken more seriously, because companies care more about their image than the truth, many men in these environments fesr even being near a woman. There are next to no reprocussions for lying and there is alot to gain from it.

For example, from this post about female celebrities who sexually/physically assaulted people here:

During an interview with Jimmy Kimmel Rebel admitted that she stuck a finger up her co-star’s, Tom Hardy’s, butt without his permission. This caused Tom Hardy to longer speak to her. She later went on to brag about how she has grabbed the breast of various women she has worked with. “If you’re going to touch somebody inappropriately, you have to tell them before the take and say, ‘Is it alright if I do this to you?,’ “ Rebel shared. “But I forgot… maybe, like, deliberately forgot.”

This did not cause much outrage at all, and she has continued her success unhindered.

From the same list:

In 2013 Emma Roberts was arrested and charged with domestic violence against her then boyfriend, Evan Peters. When police arrived at the hotel Evan had a bloody nose. He later dropped the charges. A friend described their relationship as toxic. x

Again, did next to nothing bad to her career. She went on to be in movies and more AHS seasons without complaint.

How about Mariah Carey?

Mariah’s ex-bodyguard has accused the singer of sexual harassment. He claims she would often expose herself to him while he was working. She would also refer to him and his co-bodyguards as nazis and skinheads. x

This didnt put a dent in her popularity. She went on to get tons of work. No boycotts, not outrage.

Compare that to say Johnny Depp’s accusation. Before any evidence was brought forth, before any trial or anything, hordes of women were boycotting Depp’s work. He admits he was asked to leave various projects he was on purely based on the accusations. x

Jeffrey Tambor was also accused of sexual harrassment towards an assistant, which he denied. Before any investigation, before any proof came forth, Tambor was fired/asked to leave from multiple roles and eventually retired from acting. x

Hamas has perfected the art of blending with civilians and garnering international sympathy. The Gaza Ministry of Health reports 38,000 deaths recorded in this conflict so far with no differentiation between combatants and civilians. The importance of this is that Israel reports they've killed around 15,000 combatants in the conflict, whether or not those numbers are true is up to speculation. With these, the civilian to combatant casualty ratio puts it up to par with other conflicts in this region of the world.

The reason it's important to realize how much Hamas has perfected the art of blending with civilians is that it poses an extremely difficult question with very grim implications for the future. That question is if we allow that to be an acceptable strategy; if the answer is yes then terrorists and guerrilla fighters have the perfect solution. They can get away with it as long as they make sure the opposing force doesn't have a clean shot and that has extremely dangerous implications and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for future conflicts.

Ten years ago, 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

His death immediately sparked unrest in the local community and protests soon spread to cities across the country surrounding one central message: Black Lives Matter.

Ten years ago, 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

His death immediately sparked unrest in the local community and protests soon spread to cities across the country surrounding one central message: Black Lives Matter.

Look.

The pain medication was one thing.

The baby formula was another.

But, on God, if people don't stop STEALING MUNDANE SHIT.

All criminals start off as law abiding citizens.

You think it's not possible to prevent criminals from acquiring things simply by restricting those things to a very high degree?

Restrict anything enough and not even criminals will be able to reliably get their hands on them.

Your argument is nonsensical. If you had any sense you would have realized that.

Gun control has worked in every country it has been fully implemented in.

The US will not be an exception.

Gun violence plummeted significantly during the 1994 FAWB.

The same will be true when it's implemented again.

You need to treat addiction and punish drug dealers, not punish addicts the same way you punish drug dealers.

Meanwhile the war on gun violence has been won in many countries across the globe.

Every civilized country that has completely implemented proper gun control has shown a significant decrease in gun violence.

Your equivalency doesn't work.

You're comparing the war on drugs, which was fought incorrectly, to the war on gun violence, which we know how to solve but the US has done nothing to stop.

A permanent reinstatement of the 1994 FWAB would be enough.

It worked before.

You said 'restrict'. Drugs are restricted, but anyone who wants them can easily get them. Chicago has all the gun laws that gun grabbers want, and because of that, it's got huge amounts of murders.

Maine has constitutional concealed carry, and nearly no murders now.

Chicago has a large amount of murders because it's a big city that has easy access to guns due to it's proximity to Indiana, a state with very few gun laws. Again, a majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Chicago were purchased in Gary, Indiana. A 40 minute drive away.

The crime is due to the ease of access to guns.

Gun control doesn't work if you can take a 40 minute drive to a place where it doesn't exist, purchase a gun, then drive 40 minutes back.

Maine's low murder rate has absolutely nothing to do with its gun laws. Massachusetts has a similarly low murder rate, but concealed carry isn't constitutionally protected there. These states have low murder rates because they're sparsely populated with very tight knit small towns and effective police forces.

Not only is Mexico a developing country, it also hasn't completely implemented proper gun control. Gun control isn't when no one can get a gun, it's when anyone who shouldn't own a gun can't get a gun and most types of guns that can easily be used to kill a lar number of people within a small amount of time aren't available for ownership or purchase. Wife beaters, the severely mentally ill, drug users, convicted drug dealers, convicted stalkers, convicted sex offenders, people convicted of hate crimes, people under the age of 21, people with active restraining orders, people with outstanding warrants, et cetera.

"Chicago has a large amount of murders because it's a big city that has easy access to guns due to it's proximity to Indiana, a state with very few gun laws.

If the guns are the problem, why does Indiana not have more murders than Chicago? What's the difference between the two? It's not the ease of access to guns. It's the 'gun free' zones. Criminals love soft targets where they know they're not likely to get shot.

"Not only is Mexico a developing country,

Knew it.

Mexico has ONE gun store, and you have to jump through so many hoops to get one that it might as well be an outright ban. So why do they have such gun crime problems? If nobody can legally get a gun, there's no problem, right?

The point of the drugs / guns thing, again, was that prohibition doesn't work. The current drug problem comes directly from the 1930s Prohibition. Once it was repealed, the criminals had these distribution networks all set up and nothing to do with them, but hey, here's drugs!

There's a thing about criminals that a lot of you gun grabbers seem to totally forget.

They don't obey laws. You can make all the laws you want, and a criminal will ignore them and get what he wants anyway. Guns are much easier to make than drugs; people have made working guns in prison.

2. Not only does the largest city in Indiana (Indianapolis) have less than a third of the population of Chicago, it's also only a fifth as dense. This shouldn't need explaining but more people equals more crime. Denser cities also equal more crime. Indiana also has gun crime, it just has less of it because there's less people to commit it (because Indiana has no city even close to as big or dense as Chicago). Also Indiana actually has more gun crime per capita than Illinois. So while Chicago has more gun crime than Indiana, Illinois as a whole has less gun crime than Indiana.

3. "Called it." You made a shit claim that you knew was shit when you made it and now you're acting like you're a psychic when I called your shit claim out as shit. You're really really stupid. Like unquantifiably so.

4. Mexico has high gun crime despite having high gun control for the same reason Chicago has high gun crime despite having high gun control. They're right next to a place where gun control is basically non-existent. Chicago is next to Indiana and Mexico is next to, well, the United fucking States. Gun crime in Mexico is so bad because America lacks proper gun control. Proper gun control in the US would decrease gun crime in Mexico too.

5. Prohibition doesn't work on products that can easily be manufactured, are literally consumed like food, are addictive, or can't be replaced with something else (see Prohibition and the War on Drugs). Gun's don't meet any of these characteristics. Guns are difficult to manufacture. Guns are not used up when they are consumed, and can therefore be used repeatedly (meaning demand is inherently lower). People are not addicted to guns and will not compulsively try to aquire them. People can replace guns with other weapons to achieve the same criminal purpose in almost all instances. If someone wants to commit a crime and can't easily get a gun, it's very unlikely they'll make their own and it's very unlikely they'll try very hard to get one before giving up and relying on a different form of weapon. Restrict guns enough and criminals simply will not be able to aquire them in any meaningful capacity. We've seen this effect many times in many countries that have gun control.

6. It's not a matter of obeying the law, it's a matter of simply not being able to find a way to get a gun. It's a matter of making getting a gun so difficult for anyone wanting to get one for a nefarious purpose that they simply give up and either don't commit the crime or use a far less deadly weapon. If you're a criminal in Antarctica, and you want to kill a polar bear, and it's against the law to kill a polar bear in antartica, it's not the law that's preventing you from killing a polar bear, it's the fact that they're are no polar bears in Antarctica to kill. You can't do it not because the law prevents you, but because it's literally not feasible to do.

B) Factors other than gun laws (For example, population level) affect gun violence.

C) You sure love making up new definitions and exceptions whenever someone calls you on your bullshit.

Who gets to decide that, using what standards, and how do you know they're right? How do you know their actual motives?

You think it's not possible to prevent criminals from acquiring things simply by restricting those things to a very high degree?

And how many innocent people will get screwed over in the name of trying to prevent criminals?

-signed, dude from one of many countries with heavy gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America

Gun violence plummeted significantly during the 1994 FAWB.

Ah, yes, the law that could get your rifle banned for having (checks notes) a bayonet lug. Was there some sort of rash of bayonet charges in South Central LA that needed to be addressed?

Also, gun crime was falling steadily until 2020.

Also, Columbine happened during the AWB. You know, that crime where two kids illegally got guns, and also tried to use bombs. In fact, the bombs were originally the primary weapon, the guns were just the backup.

In fact, most gun criminals are already banned from owning guns. They get the guns illegally anyway. And they're usually handguns, not long guns.

You will live in a safer country where you don't have to regularly worry about being shot, and you will enjoy it.

Statistically, the easiest way to avoid that is to never buy a gun.

Because most gun deaths are usually suicides, not murders.

Guns are not easier to manufacture than drugs.

Nice argument, Senator, how about a source?

Off the top of my head, pipe shotguns are very easy to make. Dangerous to use, yes, but easy to make.

You also seem to be leaving out the part where drugs are generally made from plants and/or chemicals. Which require a lot of space.

A meth lab is a tad more conspicuous - and dangerous - than a machine shop.

This shouldn't need explaining but more people equals more crime.

Congress. Using basic logical and moral standards.

"And how many innocent people will get screwed over in the name of trying to prevent criminals?"

Zero if we do it correctly.

"-signed, dude from one of many countries with heavy gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America"

No first world country that has gun control has a higher gun crime rate than America.

"Also, gun crime was falling steadily until 2020."

Incorrect.

"Also, Columbine happened during the AWB. You know, that crime where two kids illegally got guns, and also tried to use bombs. In fact, the bombs were originally the primary weapon, the guns were just the backup."

1. Columbine was the only major shooting to happen under the FAWB. Since the FAWB ran out, we've had similar or WORSE shootings basically every couple of years. Sandy Hook, Uvadale, and Parckland were all literally worse than Columbine.

2. All deaths during Columbine were caused by guns.

"In fact, most gun criminals are already banned from owning guns. They get the guns illegally anyway. And they're usually handguns, not long guns."

That's because we don't have enough REAL gun control. We aren't cracking down on illegal weapons sales enough or doing everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All we have are laws designed to make it harder for criminals to get guns legally. We need to make it impossible for them to get guns illegally. Aka what most 1st world countries with gun control have done. America is the only 1st world country with this problem but you're convinced that it's somehow unsolvable. Actual gun control isn't just making sure people who shouldn't have guns can't get guns legally, but that they also can't get guns illegally. Make it so difficult for them to aquire firearms at all that they either simply give up trying to commit the crime in question or just use a less deadly but easier to aquire weapon.

"Because most gun deaths are usually suicides, not murders."

Suicide is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Mass shootings are a gun issue first, and a mental health issue second. People committing suicide with guns aren't worried about getting shot in the first place so your reply makes no sense.

"Nice argument, Senator, how about a source?"

Cocaine and heroin both require less than 10 steps to make from their native plants to a finished product. Creating a working firearm from scratch very obviously takes more steps than the majority of drugs.

""I shouldn't have to actually explain my position, I should just spout NPC lines without being challenged.""

I shouldn't have to explain that more people equals more crime.

Not all correlation is causation, but all causation is correlation.

People obviously cause crime.

So population and crime are positively correlated.

Since population and crime are positively correlated, more people equals more crime.

This is basic fucking logic. Basic fucking concomitant variation will prove this fact to you.

How fucking stupid are you?

Stupid enough to engage in debate online without the slightest amount of critical thinking, basic logic skills, or any knowledge at all over the topic at hand.

That sure is a hand-wave that doesn't actually answer most of my questions.

"And how many innocent people will get screwed over in the name of trying to prevent criminals?" Zero if we do it correctly.

That assumes the only way to do it "correctly" is to do it perfectly, and completely eliminate human error.

Which is impossible.

"-signed, dude from one of many countries with heavy gun control, low legal ownership, and a higher gun murder rate than America" No first world country that has gun control has a higher gun crime rate than America.

So you admit that gun laws are not the only significant factor on gun crime?

Ignoring the many countries where gun control simply doesn't work doesn't make them vanish.

But I suspect you try to do that with a lot of things.

I'm going to stop now, because you're not worth arguing with. I'm not even going to read the rest of the post, especially since you seem to have put a third of it in H1, as if that makes you more correct.

Literally the text equivalent of yelling.

Don't diminish a man's gruesome death by acting like it did a single goddamned thing but feed him to his own demons and provide a bunch of entertainment to ghouls like you who think performative self-sacrifice for ZERO change is the height of activism, who are thrilled by the spectacle of human suffering whether it actually helps anything.

Fuck off. This isn't a fucking TV show. This man spent his time marinating in radical rhetoric and then made a spectacle of himself for revolutionary cosplayers like you who will laud him for his pointless actions, never once lifting a finger to actually help.

In both cases, people go "well, he didn't actually kill anyone!"

HOWEVER

From a subjective standpoint, you will never

EVER

convince me that this

looks better than this

It's all so god-damned predictable: Pride flag ➟ BLM ➟ Ukraine flag ➟ Free Palestine ➟ [Spring 2024 tbc]. They change them like clockwork.

People whose life revolve around politics 24/7 are seldom happy, if ever. They're always angry, spiteful, and always trying to emotionally manipulate those who aren't. I used to be one of those, and I did grow out of it, but some never do.