Is any comment necessary?
Let us assume for a moment you are constitutionally incapable of racism: you are a magic unicorn that simply cannot harbor any ill feelings or make judgements based solely on race.
Why would you support the Ferguson police narrative over others?
Well, I suppose there’s “deference to authority”: the police are duly-appointed by our government (of, by, and for the people). They are an authority and in a position that is difficult and complex on the best of days. You might live next door to your local police officer or have friends/neighbors who are former cops.
So I guess deference to authority is perfectly reasonable, except it gets weird when you’re a Tea Partier who considers nearly all aspects of our government fraudulent or illegal. Like the Posse Comitatus guys: they only accept “the local sheriff” as valid law enforcement since large standing police forces are the first tool of oppression.
So our hypothetical can’t-be-racist then logically can’t be a Tea Party member, without constantly having a headache from all the cognitive dissonance.
There could be classism, which our hypothetical can’t-be-racist person CAN experience: a general dislike of ANYONE they perceive as poor. Local demographics could make it such that more blacks are under the poverty line than whites, making it APPEAR race-related, but our hypothetical would be just as irritated at poor white people.
What else? I’m running out of scenarios.
Edited to add:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/why-darren-wilson-supporters-are-rallying-in-st-louis has some good stuff, actually, eg:
Clearmountain was among those at the rally who cited the danger of police work as a reason to afford officers respect. Her connection to police goes back a lifetime; according to Clearmountain, 59, her father worked as a police officer who came to St. Louis to desegregate the department. She especially lamented a lack of respect for police among younger generations.
This is a risk with certain band names. I’m sure Anthrax can sympathize.
The name of the militant Islamic group ISIS is probably one of the most reviled names in the country at the moment. It is also the name of a defunct post-metal rock band with the same name that is getting “off color comments” on its Facebook page.
The rockers may be hard to confuse with Islamic militants, but some have managed it.
“It certainly caught us off guard,” Aaron Harris, the band’s former drummer, told ABC News.
Even some of their fans have decided to put some distance between themselves and the music.
“Fans have emailed us that they’re reluctant to wear our T-shirts now and we’ve also gotten some off-color comments,” Harris said.
ISIS the band originated in Boston and began playing in 1997. It released nine albums with titles like “Panopticon” and “In the Absence of Truth.” The group moved to California before officially splitting up in 2010.
Today’s dads are clueless, incompetent, emotionless buffoons who don’t know their asses from their elbows when it comes to childcare, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. The overwhelming majority of us (yes, I said, the overwhelming majority) are smart, loving, and just plain awesome men who put our families first. Don’t believe me? Check out this compilation of photos taken directly from the Daddy Doin’ Work Instagram feed. Contrary to what you’ll find in mainstream media, this diverse group of dads perfectly illustrates what life is really like for fathers all over the world.
13. Dads will comfort their kids, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so.
21. Dads aren’t afraid to say, “I love you.
The entire list is at Daddy doin’ Work
Check out Daddy doin’ Work Instagram
You can also follow/like to DDW—on Facebook
Checkout the upcoming book on Amazon: Daddy Doin’ Work: Empowering Mothers to Evolve Fatherhood Paperback – September 2, 2014
For those facebook readers who have trouble seeing what’s real or not.
Do you mainly get your news from Facebook? If so, can you tell when a story is real and when it’s fake?
Apparently, Facebook doesn’t think that distinction is easy to make, which is why for the past month it’s been testing out a new feature that labels fake news stories with a “Satire” tag, according to Ars Technica. Examples include stories from the satirical news site The Onion.
In a statement to the press, Facebook said the test is meant to appease users who have apparently complained that they can’t always tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not.
I’m happy that the gender equality movement in rich countries has now reached a level that girls can publicly break with the women whose activism laid the groundwork for their own opportunities. But I confess that their contention that gendered violence and vulnerability are relics of a forgotten past strikes me as revealing a certain tunnel vision of privilege, a distinct lack of a sense of global citizenship and sisterhood.
I live in a country—just three hours away from the U.S. by plane—where women suffer the highest rate of acid attacks in the Western hemisphere, where the recent response of a prominent restauranteur to the rape of a woman on his premises was to blame the incident on the girl’s mini-skirt. Having lived here for two years, I can count on one hand the number of Colombian women I’ve met here who openly espouse feminism. Thus there would seem to be little correlation between how likely women are to call themselves feminists and how much they actually need the movement.
So my response to the girls in rich countries who earnestly believe, like French supermodel/ex-first lady Carla Bruni, that their generation “doesn’t need feminism” is simply: How very wonderful for you.
But the world is much smaller than it was during the Second Wave, and our interconnectedness intensifies our responsibilities to each other. Billions of our global sisters are still confined into social, legal, and economic structures that keep them dependent upon and vulnerable to men. This makes it a very bad idea indeed to openly call themselves feminists, given the very real risk of the label antagonizing those on whom their well-being and financial security depends.
In recalling an event where she was confronted by misogyny, trans-phobia, and racism all at once, Laverne Cox advocates for love and clarifies what makes a bully.
We have got to change.
On Saturday, a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri gunned down unarmed black teenager Michael Brown. Eyewitnesses say Brown was killed while trying to run away or surrender, but Ferguson police claim that Brown reached for the officer’s gun. It will be a long time before all the facts are sorted out, but research suggests that such claims may be rooted in something deeper than the need to explain actions after the fact: Race may literally make people see things that are not there, whether it’s a gun or a reach for a gun.
In a 2001 study, participants were shown a picture of a white face or a black face followed immediately by a picture of a weapon or a tool. They were asked to identify the object as quickly as possible. Study participants more often identified weapons correctly after they saw a black face, and more accurately identified tools after seeing an image of a white face. What’s more, “they falsely claimed to see a gun more often when the face was black than when it was white,” the report’s author wrote. He goes on:
Race stereotypes can lead people to claim to see a weapon where there is none. Split-second decisions magnify the bias by limiting people’s ability to control responses. Such a bias could have important consequences for decision making by police officers and other authorities interacting with racial minorities. The bias requires no intentional racial animus, occurring even for those who are actively trying to avoid it.
This study has been repeated by several different groups of scientists with the same results. (When participants are primed with female as opposed to male African-American faces, however, they are less likely to assume the object is a gun.)
Mark Wassberg took to the podium, wagged his finger at the Richmond City Council and said:
“I’m going to keep coming up here and tell you how gays have no morality. … You’re filth. You’re dirt. Because I have the constitutional right to say it.”
The comments during a July meeting of the council were directed at Vice Mayor Jovanka Beckles, the city’s first openly lesbian councilwoman. She sighed and listened impassively. After all, she’d heard it all before. For four years.
Since she was elected in 2010, Beckles, 51, has endured taunts, rants and ridicule about her sexual orientation and race - she’s from Panama and identifies herself as a black Latina - during City Council meetings.
Gun regulations megapost:
I’ve gotten accused of a lot of frankly weird things in talking about gun rights, but one of the main things has been being too verbose and asking too many questions. I feel this is an incredibly unfair and frankly baffling contention, since gun rights are a dense, tricky subject, interfacing with property rights, self-defense rights, public safety, privacy, and a host of other issues and to treat them at all seriously you need to go into it in depth.
Still, to keep things to a minimum, I am going to lay out my thinking in this here megapost. I am going to include counterarguments where I can, and do a synthesis where I can.
You will notice a lack of reference to the 2nd amendment. This is because referencing the 2nd amendment is not an argument, but just a citation of fact. The majority of gun regulation laws decided at the Supreme Court level have been decided by a 5-4 majority. The constitutionality of gun ownership as an individual right, or as a highly unregulated right, etc. is as tenuous, if not more, than the privacy rights and abortion rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade. The dissents make compelling arguments for guns as a collective right with self-defense as the individual right. Anyone who relies on the 2nd amendment during an argument about what our gun policy should be is missing the point: The question is what policy we should have. The 2nd amendment is not a part of that conversation except to the extent that it offers an argument. The argument in the 2nd amendment for the possession of guns is the need for a militia, and so the 2nd amendment, on its own, is a very weak, very poor argument.
1. For any firearm regulations to really change in the US, gun culture has to change.
This is rather obvious, but it needs to be stressed. The push, in the wake of school shooting tragedies, for legislation addressing the problem is not helpful. It is not helpful because these laws tend to be badly written, but also because, even if there is political will in the wake of a tragedy, that ground gained would not be permanent and can be rolled back. We would not be celebrating the gay rights victories in the courts if the culture of the US wasn’t also becoming more and more tolerant of gay people.
Counterargument: Changing laws will change culture. The Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have gotten anywhere if it didn’t focus on legal changes.
Rebuttal: This is relatively difficult to argue, but I don’t think it holds water because we have numerous examples to show that it doesn’t. Prohibition didn’t change US drinking culture for the better, it actually made it worse. The anti-abortion culture in the US has made abortion rights restrict even while gay rights expand. Laws are absolutely a part of this change, but they should capitalize on cultural change, not be expected to produce it on its own. The Civil Rights movement was very much a cultural as well as a legalistic force.
2. Guns are a tool designed for a purpose. The purpose of guns is to kill things. That guns are also used for plinking tin cans and for target shooting does not eradicate their actual purpose, which is to kill. Among the things they are designed to kill is human beings.
Counterargument: Guns are for fun, some guns can’t kill a human being, guns are for threatening and not for killing.
Rebuttal: Each of these may be true, but the reason that guns were invented, the improvements to their design, their central purpose is to kill. Corner cases do not contradict this.
3. If a person has a gun, they should be trained to use that gun for the purpose that they bought the gun for. This may seem like common sense, but there’s a surprising amount of pushback against this. Still, if one starts from the beginning, I think this contention is a very powerful one. If someone buys a gun for self-defense, then they should be able to defend themselves with that gun. If someone buys a gun for hunting, they should be able to hunt with that gun. They should be able to do these things safely, without presenting an undue risk to themselves or others. If they cannot use the gun safely for the purpose that they bought it for, then there is no purpose for which they actually have the gun.
Counterargument: Honestly, I have a hard time finding a counterargument to this. Currently, in many, many states, you can just buy a gun and keep it at home with zero training. This makes minimal sense, and I think is a large part of the PR problem of the gun community, that it has such a low barrier to entry. Many other places have an incredibly law bar to even carry a concealed weapon around, like Florida, where a hunter safety course is enough to get you a CCW. I have not yet had anyone articulate an actual reason why people who want a gun for a purpose should not get the training necessary to use and be tested on that training.
I have seen the argument that some current gun training courses are already sufficient for this. I’m fine with that argument, as long as that contention gets tested.
4. Gun bans are counterproductive, expending political capital for little return. The number of guns in the US is already so high that bans do little to affect actual numbers. Gun bans turn people who are just ignorant and/or fearful into criminals, when a better solution can be found.
Counterargument: Gun bans lower gun violence.
Rebuttal: While it may be true, though hard to prove, that bans alone can reduce gun violence, there are lots of places with gun bans and high gun violence, because the guns are simply brought in from more lax areas. There is little point to having a gun ban in the city when anyone can just drive into the city with a gun. This also leads to people who are legal carriers passing through another jurisdiction being arrested, which is a waste of time and money. Gun bans expend a ton of political capital and tend to focus on ‘villain’ guns like ‘assault rifles’, while cheap handguns contribute far, far more to gun violence. In theory, I kind of support the ‘right’ of a city to decide gun regulations inside it, but I see it as really besides the point and counterproductive.
5. Most people buying guns for self-defense don’t need them, and actually increase their risk by buying them. People look at the national numbers for crime and come to the conclusion that they are at risk for violent crime, but the simple truth is that most people are not at any particular risk for violent crime, and where they are at risk, it is from intimate partners, friends, or family, and a gun would be unlikely to be useful. Stranger crime—being attacked by someone you don’t know—is rare, and it is very rare in most places. It mostly occurs in particular areas of cities, along drug corridors, and between criminals or those who live among criminals. People need to assess their actual situational safety and not use national numbers, and they need to honestly self-assess their risk of gun accidents, too.
Counterargument: Even though the risk may be low, who is to say what’s too low? People have a right to make themselves safe even against unlikely fears.
Rebuttal: Guns are not just a danger to the person who has them, but to society at large. They can be stolen—which many, many guns are each year—or be used in suicides. We would not support the right of people to burn tires in their back yard to drive away rabid raccoons; the actual likelihood of an event has got to count for something, and the risk of the response to that event. Furthermore, this touches on one of the worst aspects of gun culture, the paranoid “You’re never safe” attitude, the vigilante attitude, that causes problems far beyond the actual physical gun problems.
Finally, we should remember that most gun owners are just ordinary people. Most gun owners are not the fetishists, and the bad habits of gun culture come from a minority of yahoos. Gun owners, in general, take gun ownership seriously. My proposals, I feel, would strengthen the gun community and protect them, long-term, against the loss of gun rights. In the current moment, more and more antipathy towards gun owners is building up in ordinary people, partially because of the unwillingness to compromise—but this unwillingness is mainly pushed from groups like the NRA. I think that responsible gun owners exist and are reachable, but that they have been propagandized for a long, long time and need to be approached rationally and patiently. We should remember that we live in a very safe country in general, and that most violent crime is confined to intra-group violence in areas that need a sociological solution.
I would also note that the proposal I’m making for training and testing doesn’t touch at all on the ‘good character’ thing which is so often cited.
If you’ve read this whole thing, thank you for your time and attention. If you feel I’ve made any errors, please point them out. All I ask is that, given I took time and care with this post, you take time and care in your reply. If I am in error, show where I am in error and actually demonstrate it, construct an argument, not just an assertion. This topic needs to be approached soberly and judiciously: it is not going to go away, and if responsible gun owners don’t step up, their gun rights may be severely restricted within our lifetime.