|
Moxie posted:I think it's true that social isolation and romantic failure motivates a lot of these shooters. Obviously liberal application of pity loving is not a female imperative. Safe and legal prostitution might help, but it's also problematic. Virtually every society in history has a tradition of matchmaking. The modern American cultural narrative about long-term relationships springing from random encounters actually makes no sense if you stop to think about it. Which is more likely to create stable romantic pairs: random assortment (through many iterations) or an experienced professional with a contact network and high social intelligence? Online dating services simply replace the role of matchmaker that used to exist in most communities. The high divorce rate is the other side of the problem. We leave individuals in an increasingly mobile increasingly atomized population to find their own partner in their spare time, and even the people who do succeed in finding a partner often don't form stable relationships. The sexual revolution was far from perfect. In the name of freedom and individualism we dismantled the social contract that moderated adolescents' passage into adulthood, of which marriage formed a major part. Now we wonder why young people can't seem to grow up, why they're getting married later or can't seem to meet suitable romantic partners, when in fact modern society has no clear mechanism to enable young adults to do any of those things. Combined with the early feminist tendency to shove women into male roles and call it progress, we now have this society that doesn't have a mechanism to pair off its marriageable young adults, takes so little account of women's age of fertility that women who want to be successful are freezing their eggs, and generally provides little or no maternity support. On top of that we expect young adults to move away from their family. Little wonder that the image of a typical young woman in her twenties "a basic bitch" spends her evenings alone on the couch in front of a screen with ice cream and wine. When you have communities of angry young men on the Internet raging about how they can't get laid (while also not trying/knowing how to get laid) 28 year old virgins taking classes on how to talk to women, a 50% divorce rate, and the explosive popularity of computer programs that tell you where to find compatible partners within a few kilometers the only conclusion is that society has completely failed at providing a functioning model of romantic attachment.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Virtually every society in history has a tradition of matchmaking. The modern American cultural narrative about long-term relationships springing from random encounters actually makes no sense if you stop to think about it. Which is more likely to create stable romantic pairs: random assortment (through many iterations) or an experienced professional with a contact network and high social intelligence? Online dating services simply replace the role of matchmaker that used to exist in most communities. Most of this is directly attributable to or made worse by capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Most of this is directly attributable to or made worse by capitalism. Full communism now. The state will provide every community with matchmakers!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Most of this is directly attributable to or made worse by capitalism. Yeah I always find it ironic when talking heads in the media complain that the newer generation of people can't seem to grow up, they don't have children or get married as much, and generally have too much casual encounters with the opposite sex. At the same time the people in charge are generally opposed to giving maternity leave, want everyone working as much as people with no time to raise a family, want young adults going to college for 6+ years to work entry-level job, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Combined with the early feminist tendency to shove women into male roles and call it progress,  quote:When you have communities of angry young men on the Internet raging about how they can't get laid (while also not trying/knowing how to get laid) 28 year old virgins taking classes on how to talk to women, a 50% divorce rate, and the explosive popularity of computer programs that tell you where to find compatible partners within a few kilometers the only conclusion is that society has completely failed at providing a functioning model of romantic attachment. Or, here I am in this marriage and it sucks because we were paired based on my beauty and his money, but as a woman if I divorce him I will be somewhere between a pariah and a literal nonentity, hm wonder why the divorce rate is so low. (If I'm legally allowed to get a divorce for anything besides adultery in the first place)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:Yeah I always find it ironic when talking heads in the media complain that the newer generation of people can't seem to grow up, they don't have children or get married as much, and generally have too much casual encounters with the opposite sex. At the same time the people in charge are generally opposed to giving maternity leave, want everyone working as much as people with no time to raise a family, want young adults going to college for 6+ years to work entry-level job, etc. And they're perfectly okay with economic collapses that uproot entire communities every decade or so, and people having to scatter to the winds looking for work. Pretty hard to keep families connected when they span multiple time zones. I think he was accusing that progress of being superficial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Kids these days are getting married later and they're not having kids or buying houses, must be because our social systems are all hosed up, it can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that our young adults are all saddled with huge amounts of debt and earning pennies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Like Dick Cheney said: The American way of life is not negotiable. You can either accept that your kids are going to grow up poorer than you (which is unthinkable), or you can not have kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:Kids these days are getting married later and they're not having kids or buying houses, must be because our social systems are all hosed up, it can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that our young adults are all saddled with huge amounts of debt and earning pennies. Well to be fair, you could reasonably argue that the social system issues are ultimately contributing to those. The social system issues causing people retiring later and later in life is then causing a log jam in professional fields, which in the end contributes towards the arms race of education in the young to try and get the foot in the door. This helps further mess up the social system by delaying financial independence and overcrowding of the college system leads to higher costs. All resulting in more debt on the young and depressed wage growth. It's pretty hard to completely separate a country's social system and it's household economics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
The thing that has been bothering me the most is seeing the posts/forwards like: "THERE ARE NO PARENTS AT HOME THE BREAKDOWN OF THE FAMILY IS THE REASON FOR ALL BAD THINGS!!!" *Directly endorses policies that make it impossible to own a home and raise a family on one income.* I mean, seriously. It's so transparent no one actually gives a gently caress about "the family." No one even begins to ask the question "Huh, why can't I get a job that can support a family on my own while companies are making record profits?" because it immediately becomes "YOU SHOULD THANK YOUR BOSS HE GAVE YOU THAT JOB, COMMIE" (sorry for the caps)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Anubis posted:It's pretty hard to completely separate a country's social system and it's household economics. I would love to see a real world example of this ever happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Someone on my facebook feed liked this meme from the page "Obama is a failure, so that makes me a racist?" Try reminding them that the 1938 German Weapons act was actually the largest loosening of gun regulations of the 20th century. Edit: beaten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
 Sigh. For starters, D-Day was in June. 2nd, Britain First is a White Nationalist party. 3rd, we are in the US, why the gently caress is someone posting another countries rightwing bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:And why would you use the same actors every time. Is there a special casting list these people sign up for? How can we trust them to keep it a secret. They must pay really well because as a crisis actor you probably can't get any legit acting jobs. Like are they raised by the government to be crisis actors? How does someone so young get that position? There are so many weird questions. It's simple really. There aren't that many actors desperate enough to appear at all these tragedies. You also can't just throw up a casting sheet that says " looking for attractive brunette to appear grief stricken outside illuminati false flag attacks". So what ends up happening is you have a small group of dedicated actors who the shadow government knows are willing to grief actors and its a lot easier to just use the same cast than it is to just find new people for the roles. There is also a much more insidious reason. The illuminati loves nothing more than rubbing the fact that they control the government and media in Truther's faces by blatantly lying to the Sheeple and getting away with time after time while those of us awakened to the truth go hoarse trying to liberate minds from the Matrix. Why do you think they put so many coded messages in music and pop culture? Partly to get Sheeple used to illuminati symbols for their eventual take over but also to rub it in Truther's faces. ... I may have a brother in law who is very into crisis actor conspiracies. The "rubbing it in Our faces" is really true, he's always sending out memes that say it with various crisis actor pictures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Wasn't there something related to schizophrenia and the whole crisis actor thing? Like something to do with having trouble differentiating between faces I believe. Regardless? The entire thing is sick, and the people who perpaute this stuff need to legitimately see a psychologist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Prosopagnosia
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Wasn't there something related to schizophrenia and the whole crisis actor thing? "It's not my fault everyone is so suspicious!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:
At least it's not the BNP poster campaigning against Polish immigrants, with a Polish Spitfire in the background.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:
Operation Dragoon was in August, Operation Market-Garden was in September, I don't think anything happened on this day in Oct 1944
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
quote:If you judge a religion by what the followers of that religion do then there is no way you can condone Islam. Many religions coexist in the same space. Not Islam. Almost every war on earth except where Muslims don't exist has Muslims fighting either other Muslims or another religion. Technically this guy is correct. Muslims fight in wars that involve Muslims and do not fight in wars where there are no Muslims. I'm not sure how that's different than almost every other grouping of people on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Where did you find that? Sounds like satire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
Your Gay Uncle posted:It's simple really. There aren't that many actors desperate enough to appear at all these tragedies. You also can't just throw up a casting sheet that says " looking for attractive brunette to appear grief stricken outside illuminati false flag attacks". So what ends up happening is you have a small group of dedicated actors who the shadow government knows are willing to grief actors and its a lot easier to just use the same cast than it is to just find new people for the roles. Some of the crazier ones think that the Illuminati or whoever leave clues because Satan or lizard people or whoever demands it as part of their evil pact or because the evil magic doesn't work or isn't as effective if there aren't any clues. A significant portion of the GOP base is sliding closer and closer to Infowars territory every day and it's just fascinating to watch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:
Number 3 is obvious; the only thing better than fellating your own military culture is having someone from another country (preferably white) do it for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:Some of the crazier ones think that the Illuminati or whoever leave clues because Satan or lizard people or whoever demands it as part of their evil pact or because the evil magic doesn't work or isn't as effective if there aren't any clues. Ah, Infowars. Where the REAL meaning of the Watchman movie was that Obama needed to complete his pact with the NWO/Illuminati by telling you what he was going to stage a false flag attack in 6 months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
 Are we going to break out the hammer murders by type of hammer? Ball peen, Carpenter's (9oz), Carpenter's (16oz), Framing, Roofing My friend, who is otherwise a borderline populist Feel the Bern kinda dude is just really loving mental about these stupid gunchat memes on FB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Are they just counting accidental deaths? According to the FBI, there were 8583 homicides by firearm in 2011, not counting any sort of accidental deaths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
No, what they are doing is using only the murders committed by a rifle (for which 323 is accurate, it's just disregarding the 6,000 people killed by handguns and 1,500 killed by unlisted firearms). Of course, the number for 'Hammers' is actually the number of murders committed with literally any blunt object, making their sleight of hand on the gun numbers even shittier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:No, what they are doing is using only the murders committed by a rifle (for which 323 is accurate, it's just disregarding the 6,000 people killed by handguns and 1,500 killed by unlisted firearms). Of course, the number for 'Hammers' is actually the number of murders committed with literally any blunt object, making their sleight of hand on the gun numbers even shittier. EDIT: Beaten, as if with a hammer. I don't know why people on either side of the debate are so lovely with numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Where did you find that? Sounds like satire. Friend of a family member. Family member is very Christian (the kind who actually listens to what Jesus taught) and was talking about how we need to love and accept other people regardless of religion. He shut that guy down pretty hard by pointing out all the poo poo Christianity has done over the years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
It's actually still illegal to kill people with hammers. Who knew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:No, what they are doing is using only the murders committed by a rifle (for which 323 is accurate, it's just disregarding the 6,000 people killed by handguns and 1,500 killed by unlisted firearms). Of course, the number for 'Hammers' is actually the number of murders committed with literally any blunt object, making their sleight of hand on the gun numbers even shittier. I didn't even notice that, since I actually looked at the number that mattered. If you called them out, you'd probably be graced with a response like: "Well the picture is of a rifle, so clearly the number is accurate  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:We do not want to start detailing the many times that a single individual killed dozens (sometimes hundreds) of their fellow humans with non-firearm implements. It is a depressing and sobering list. Be glad that here in the states what is possibly the least effective tool for mass murder is selected. LeJackal posted:Pick a genre. (Bold is my addition for clarity's sake.) LeJackal posted:EDIT: Beaten, as if with a hammer. I don't know why people on either side of the debate are so lovely with numbers. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:No, what they are doing is using only the murders committed by a rifle (for which 323 is accurate, it's just disregarding the 6,000 people killed by handguns and 1,500 killed by unlisted firearms). Of course, the number for 'Hammers' is actually the number of murders committed with literally any blunt object, making their sleight of hand on the gun numbers even shittier. I can kind of understand why they break it out, though, since complaints like this originally arose over "Assault weapon" ban/regulation legislation (although that still doesn't explain using all hammers and not some subset). But then you get stuff like this still circulated now even if it's in response to broad concepts like greater enforcement of background checks for all gun purchases. It's not outright lying, but is instead bad numbers due to recycling old arguments that are only topically related to a current issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:No, what they are doing is using only the murders committed by a rifle (for which 323 is accurate, it's just disregarding the 6,000 people killed by handguns and 1,500 killed by unlisted firearms). Of course, the number for 'Hammers' is actually the number of murders committed with literally any blunt object, making their sleight of hand on the gun numbers even shittier. Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 728 Amputate everyone at birth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
People circulating it now are probably just ignorant and too lazy to actually check any information before they regurgitate it, yea. But whoever made it initially was obviously deceptive, because they were careful enough to pull out the specific number for rifles and then obfuscate the blunt objects. It's not like that category is labeled 'Hammers (and other blunt objects), they had to intentionally overlook the main title and even the first item (clubs) to make their framing work. Whoever made it originally was definitely lying, because hammers don't kill that many people and they explicitly say that they do. Also note that they point out hammers multiple times in the text, but only use the image of a rifle, avoiding actually saying that its excluding lots of other guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 728 But if they didn't have hands, people would just start attatching weapons to their stumps.  As they say, guns don't kill people, people do. Ban people. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:
America seems like a pretty safe place if there were only 300 firearm related deaths (I know that they are dishonestly ignoring handguns) in a year. Not sure what the gun owners are so scared of!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:America seems like a pretty safe place if there were only 300 firearm related deaths (I know that they are dishonestly ignoring handguns) in a year. Not sure what the gun owners are so scared of! Not just ignoring handguns, but ignoring gun deaths where the gun type isn't listed (and there's a pretty good chance that there are enough rifles in the uncategorized group to push the rifle number alone over the "hammer and blunt objects" number).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Radish posted:America seems like a pretty safe place if there were only 300 firearm related deaths (I know that they are dishonestly ignoring handguns) in a year. Not sure what the gun owners are so scared of! But what if you get the chance to kill someone, how could you possibly pass that up?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:43
|
|
