oh your god, people. is this really that difficult? dipshit killed those three kids for parking in his spot, and the thing that anti-theism did was give him a context to dehumanize them far enough for the fucking coward to carry it out. actually, that's only why he killed the first one. he killed the other two because he was compelled by his own completionism... because he is a weakling. once the first one was dead, his brain needed to complete the scenario that he'd (obviously) played out repeatedly in fantasy. a fantasy he'd constructed out of the trappings of anti-theism. not because they were muslim, but because they kept parking in his spot. if it wasn't religion, it would have been some other damn thing. if those three kids had been white girls, we'd be talking about how he's an anti-feminist and gawking at the links to "a voice for men" and girl writes what videos on his facebook page. if they'd been three white dudes, we'd all be putting ourselves through talking about elliott roger again. it didn't start with the kids being muslims. it started years ago when the village idiot decided to go captain dickhead on his neighbors. the fact that the ones he ended up shooting were muslims is a result of hicks having a context from which to dehumanize them. do i blame anti-theism? no. but i would suggest (... politely) that anti-theists take stock of what about the collective balance of their output might be getting assembled in such a way that it provides scaffolding for this magnitude of sociopathy. i make this suggestion the same way i make the suggestion to the catholic church that letting priests be married men might cut down on the kiddyfiddlers and muslims might want to ask that their imams not make people angry on purpose. just saying. being anti-stuff doesn't have a good track record, organizationally speaking. the problem with being anti-stuff is that line between "anti-anything" and "anti-everything" is too thin for the human eye to notice when it's crossed... at least, not in time to make any damn difference. you know who i personally blame? whoever gave him the gun. i have a reason to be acquainted with the type of personality that goes into a "blind rage" when they're angry. if a gun had been present in my psych 101 class at Hard Knocks U, the vector for that sudden realization you just had about my personal history would not be me. whoever put that gun into craig hicks' hands needs to be knuckleslapped. and, postscript, there isn't going to be any resolution for any of us on this, just so you know. if i'm prognosticating, i'm going to guess there won't even be a trial. that chickenshit will take whatever deal he's offered to keep his ass out of federal prison. they'll bust the charge down from murder to whatever they're allowed to keep him in regional for (probably manslaughter) and he'll plead guilty to that. the judge will sentence him to 99 consecutive life sentences and he'll spend the rest of his life in Podunk County Prison getting federally funded college degrees and visits from his mom every sunday. the best we can hope for is that he accidentally invents something useful on the company dime before he croaks.
(sorts through bag looking for the little chalk heart that says "is it over yet?") yes, national "make anyone who doesn't feel compelled to permanently embed an expensive boat anchor into themselves feel like there's something wrong with them" day 2015 has commenced. let me assure you that all this means to me, functionally, is i have a higher than average possibility of witnessing the domestic violence related death of one or more of my neighbors today. the women will wake up expecting the men to be solicitous and kind, and the men will wake up expecting the women to be unconscious and lubricated... someone's gonna be wearing a bruise by noon. we don't need a "valentine's day". we need a "try not to hit the person you're living with for twenty four hours" day... which i also won't be participating in, because the odds that i'll ever live with anyone again are slim and none, and slim's got no clue he's invited. besides, i kind of like living in a world where none of the things i keep in my home get "accidentally" broken (or sold) every time i go out somewhere. along those lines, there's a guy out there who has no idea that the reason he's alone this valentine's day is because he assumed he was more welcome in my apartment than my violin. live and learn, i guess. at least i know what to say to the next guy who watches me fix a spot on the couch for him, then points to the broken chair my violin is on and grunts, "are you going to let me sit down?" (hint: it's going to rhyme with "shmet the shmuck out of my shmapartment.") on the other hand, there was the guy who told me "i like everything about you except your personality." ... 'k. and he said this with a straight face and the expectation that those words would make me genuinely consider changing my personality in order to give him an opportunity to masturbate into me. it makes me wonder, because nobody says anything that stupid unless it worked at some point. i can't imagine what that woman's life must be like. y'know, maybe it's not valentine's day that's bullshit.
Monday, February 9, 2015
i've been watching some minor fb "drammer" go down, and it reminds me of my hypothesis... *hypothesis* hypothesis that young men who appear to be initiating anonymous sexual interactions with women online are actually interacting sexually with whatever other young men are present with them at their end of the interaction, and that group of young men is using the woman as a proxy for their sexual interaction because it keeps them from having to work out how gay they are (because everyone's at least kinda gay - we're systems, not programs. there are no absolutes). because you'll notice that heterosexual women don't have the same problem interacting in a superficially sexual way with one another. we braid each other's hair and rate each other's tits and do each other's makeup. there's no need for us to use a male in order to impress a reminder of our heterosexuality into the experience for ourselves because we aren't made to feel bad about ourselves for engaging in first-order sexuality (grooming behaviors) with one another. i think the closest a young heterosexual man is allowed by "society" to get to having that kind of intimacy with other heterosexual men (where nobody feels compelled to advertise their raging case of notgays) is in the context of physical exertion and competition. playing sports and working out is the closest men come to grooming with other men without feeling compelled to invoke a female presence to justify their normal, healthy sexual responses to one another. i mean, have you noticed that auto shops, military barracks, male college dorms... these places are all plastered in images of sexualized women. look around a locker room next time you're watching a post-game interview. see any pictures of hoochie-coochie girls there? hell to the no. not in a one i've seen. the locker room is the Man Zone, baby. that's where real men give each other hamstring massages and carefully wrap one another's most delicate joints to keep them safe. it's the only place we allow men to realize that they're all on the same side, and that loving one another is loving themselves. men who experience satisfying first order sexuality with other men just don't feel compelled to turn women into a tertiary context for that. team sports affords them all the same-sex interaction they need to feel sexually whole... which, for straight guys, just isn't all that much. i think we see that an occasional pat on the ass during timeouts tends to suffice. and what's at fault? patriarchy. yes, our good friend patriarchy. this is men telling other men that there's something wrong with them for having any sort of attachment to or need for psychosexual interaction with other men, even though that's normal and healthy. this is men telling other men that they're only "men" if the only people they ever make physical contact with are female. this is men denying other men the full extent of human experience. now, nobody's suggesting you go peg a dude for equality or anything if that's not what you're into, but the next time you and your friends are giggling over having made some random woman vaguely uncomfortable by talking to her chest, stop and think about who you're really having sexytimes with right there. hint: it's not the woman... and that's not her fault.
police are unpredictable. they liken themselves to wild animals for a reason ("always show your hands because we're more scared of you than you are of us", etc.). this is why it's never a good idea to get too close, even if it doesn't seem like anything is happening:
i really think someone needs to make this officer sit in front of this video, watch it with her a few times, and then have her explain exactly what was going through her head right here. what is the threat she's reacting to? does she have any self-awareness in this moment at all? this is something i believe the american people have a right to know about their police officers. we have the right to know why they choose to employ the power we grant them in the way they do because it is the power, ultimately, to do us harm. the fifth amendment to the u.s. constitution compels agents of the government to give justification for the actions they take against citizens as a matter of due process, so i want to know what this lady's major malfunction is.
