Fucking Omar. If we get a President Trump, it's things like this that'll make it happen.
I'm seeing reports of 20 killed and 50 killed, even on the same news sites. 20 seems like no biggie these days. 50 would be news.
Initial reports were 20, but seems like everything is being updated to say 50 now.
20 seems like no biggie these days
When somebody like you starts to get blase about 20 people being killed simultaneously, the bad guys have won.
1 is correct.
I've turned off the news because I don't feel like spending the morning crying.
Now the worst mass shooting in American history.
I think 4 is wrong actually. Terrorism only works inasmuch as it causes reactions disproportionate to the actual scale of the terrorist problem. At risk of being a dick, who today remembers this, this, this or this? Fact is these bastards come and go, and the more blase Americans were, the less true ogged's 1 would be.
But just think, non-elite conservatives also hate gays, especially the kind who go to nightclubs, so there's got to be some cognitive dissonance for them here. Do they hate terrorists more, or visible gay people? How can they blame a guy for shooting a bunch of gay men when they're also of the "god says gays should die" tradition?
I also have to say that as a queer person, not seeing anything about how this is homophobic (at least in the coverage I've seen so far) is pretty hard for me to take. This was a homophobic mass killing just like the Charleston shooting was a racist mass killing.
9.last: they aren't saying anything about motive, but they say he was "apparently linked" to Isis ideology, and Isis is of course an intensely homophobic group.
10: But it immediately stands out to me that 53 people, mostly gay, were killed at a gay nightclub and I have not seen one news article (I mean, I'm sure there's a couple, it's not like I have literally read all of them, but still) that uses the word "homophobic" or says "hate crime". Or even says "ISIS says to kill the gays". And I cannot help but read that as reflecting how even when 53 people are murdered at a gay nightclub, it's just too politically risky for media to come out and say that hate of queer people causes violence against queer people, it's too politically risky to cover this in a way that sympathizes with the social violence that gay people face all the time still. It's bad because it's terrorism, not because it's of a piece with violence against gay people.
I wouldn't say you're wrong to feel that way, but I'd maybe hold your reaction in abeyance for, say, 48 hours? Even though the motivation is blindingly obvious, I feel as though the first round of stories on this sort of thing is very often 'just the facts', and it might take a day or so to get coverage on why it happened.
The linked article does quote someone saying that the shooter was apparently upset at seeing 2 men kiss in public a few weeks ago, so the homophobic motive isn't being discounted completely.
But that was deep in the middle of the article, nothing about it in the headline.
Do they hate terrorists more, or visible gay people?
I was wondering this, too.
The Guardian says "That investigation was still determining if the shooting was "terrorism or a massive, massive hate crime", the official said.". Which is a weird binary (it can't be both?) but also just sounds like standard early investigation hedging to me.
At the link, a GLAAD tweet is front and center, and they call it terrorism. To me, that doesn't feel like they're glossing over the homophobia?
Fuck./
I fear more stuff like this will lead to 1.
/Fuck.
For myself, I'm more worried about about misuse of tag syntax.
15: From this, it seems like the exact definition of terrorism is a factor.
So far as I can see this could be many different overlapping sorts of crazy: Isis hates gays, hates Americans, etc. Lone nutters hate both but can affiliate retrospectively to Isis (which seems to be what has happened here). It's sometimes organised and sometimes a franchise. But anything which makes a trump victory more likely is doubleplus bad as well as the wickedness in itself
I envision some heads exploding (in practice, conspicuous silence) if it's someone sympathetic to ISIS but whipped up by American Christian homophobia.
Didn't the media recently decide that perhaps publicizing the names of shooters was a bad idea?
Only if they aren't scary Muslim people.
That's why there's no musical called "Burr".
Gah - I worry even more now about ethnic profiling. The shooter looks like people I love.
Meanwhile: the popular headline "worst mass shooting in U.S. history" has been irritating me a bit. I suppose you could quibble about what's meant by "U.S.", but really, I think more native Americans were killed from time to time back in the day. "in modern U.S. history" is preferable.
Is "shooting" used to rule out Timothy Mcveigh?
"Modern U.S. history" is what the Guardian is using. "In the U.S. in modern history" would be even better because that excludes Pinkville.
They just picked up some guy on his way to the Santa Monica Pride parade with a car full of assault rifles and explosives.
I don't suppose there was any chance that was for self protection?
He was a concerned citizen, protecting the marchers from Isis. Obviously. What do you think the Second Amendment is for?
Americans have 100 words for mass murder.
Gun rights people immediately point to how the death toll could have been reduced if only more of the people in the clubs had guns. Gun free zones = easy targets
The guy appears to be much more driven by homophobia than anything else. It is like he thought "wait....ISIS hates gays?? ISIS wants people killed?? Perfect."
Gun rights people immediately point to how the death toll could have been reduced if only more of the people in the clubs had guns. Gun free zones = easy targets
They always say this, but it seems completely nuts to think that more people having guns would have reduced rather than increased the death toll in a situation like this (shooter unexpectedly opening fire in a crowded space).
You people keep talking as if Republicans make arguments in good faith. Sad!
The headbangers have hit bars before, of course : Bali 2002, and the attempted car bombs in London in 2007 come to mind. (Aimed specifically at bars full of "filthy slappers" if I remember the bombers' remarks, recorded before they tried to blow up Glasgow airport and got beaten and burned to death.) IS is claiming this one now.
35/37: you can't "point out" something that is probably not true.
No one should be denied the freedom to carry an assault rifle everywhere to defend against the effects of the freedom to carry an assault rifle everywhere.
37: In the end, public safety isn't the point. To the committed gun nut, pumping an evildoer full of lead is the highest and best thing that anyone can do in life because in doing so they will be elevated to a level of heroic, confident masculinity that would otherwise be unattainable. They would rather live in a less safe society than in a safer one where they know they'll never have an opportunity to fire their gun in public.
And of course, wherever someone really undertakes heroic action to stop a mass murder (like when Marcus Grimmie somehow had the presence of mind to tackle his sister's murderer immediately after the gunman fired the shots) it largely gets ignored, not only because it is rarely done with firearms but also because in real life that kind of heroism isn't photogenic and triumphant but messy and sad, along with being traumatic for the hero.
I have no idea who you are, but that's a great pseud.
||
OT - but possibly kind of related.
I just saw an ad on CNN for gourmet survival meals, guaranteed to last for 25 years. These people.
|>
I was delurkatron a few threads ago. Might as well go full pseudonymous.
Yes. I just didn't know if you were here from way back before me or not.
39 - dude totally uncool use of headbangers there. Some headbangers were victims!
9: Cognitive dissonance isn't a problem for the Nut Right, it's a strategy.
In this case, they get to hate on 50 dead gay people, who had it coming (or God wouldn't have allowed it), plus the Muslim dude who did it.
It's win-win.
I'm skipping the downtown vigil that just started, and I feel a little bad about it, but I also don't exactly understand if attending is primarily a good deed for others, to show solidarity and support, or primarily about being comforted by being around others who are also upset. Where's the manual on these things. Surely I can kick in money somewhere instead?
Seems to me this is why we need more organizations like Bash Back! and ACT UP! -- does anyone actually think this moron would have been deterred by some HRC-penned hate crime sentencing enhancement? What's even the point in a death penalty state?
Meanwhile, if you wanna do something official, they oughta be investigating these far right churches that sponsor lesser harassment and impedence of people's reproductive freedom.
38 and 42 are great. Stuff like that is why I keep coming here. Thanks guys.
The story about the guy texting his mom while being trapped in the bathroom with his murderer is utterly heartbreaking.
in real life that kind of heroism isn't photogenic and triumphant but messy and sad, along with being traumatic for the hero.
Not always: what about those guys on the Thalys train last year? Heard the shooter getting ready, jumped him as soon as he came out, no fatalities. And that got plenty of attention.
54: Also passengers disarming terrorists on flights, fairly regularly.
What will inevitably depress me is the Guardian publishing its regular "the real tragedy here is if this produces an anti-Muslim backlash". Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't much of a history of gay people responding to violent oppression with indiscriminate slaughter. What there is, though, is a history of radical nutcases like this inspiring and copying each other.
there isn't much of a history of gay people responding to violent oppression with indiscriminate slaughter
If they wanted to start, it really couldn't be easier to get the equipment than right now.
After Clinton is elected and before she takes office, there will probably be an increase in prices.
57. Sorry, the Sacred Band was a Well Ordered Militia if ever there was one.
Exactly. They responded with precise, accurate slaughter.
Shooter's dad has just released a video in which he (the father) condemns his son's actions on the grounds that it's up to God to punish the filthy queers for what they do, not us, and especially not during Ramadan which is a holy month.
Naturally, he had no idea that his son was going to do anything of the sort. They never do.
Someone should arrange a meeting with Brock Turner's father. I'm sure they'd get along like a house on fire.
Like a house on fire gets along with what?
What will inevitably depress me is the Guardian publishing its regular "the real tragedy here is if this produces an anti-Muslim backlash". Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't much of a history of gay people responding to violent oppression with indiscriminate slaughter.
Who would have been saying a backlash would come from gay people? It would be from horrible people claiming to act on their behalf (at most).
66.last: Right. I didn't really finish my thought in 49: Bigots also get to claim that their loathing of Islam means they are the ones who really care about gay people.
I know the Tories are way ahead of our Republicans on accepting gay rights. Have gays in fact joined the Tories because of their fear of Muslims? Is that happening?
Is that even a backlash, though? I'm not sure it counts if it was something they were already doing anyway, so much as just yet another excuse.
Have gays in fact joined the Tories because of their fear of Muslims? Is that happening?
Pim Fortuyn?
I guess Andrew Sullivan was already a Republican when he started being publicly scared of Muslims.
public safety isn't the point. To the committed gun nut, pumping an evildoer full of lead is the highest and best thing that anyone can do in life because in doing so they will be elevated to a level of heroic, confident masculinity that would otherwise be unattainable. They would rather live in a less safe society than in a safer one where they know they'll never have an opportunity to fire their gun in public.
The gun rights crowd sincerely believes that they are safer with guns than without. Many of these people are law enforcement officers.
They respond with citing the "gun free" zones where many of these things take place. If someone had a gun instead the club, perhaps fewer people would have died.Sure. Perhaps.
The problem with that is that the vast majority of these events are over long before the mythical "good guy with a gun" can stop it. But, the public appears to be on the side that they want someone to be able to arm themselves for these long lasting threats.
Obama has given some excellent speeches about these topics. Nuanced speeches where he repeats "Im not coming for your guns." For some reason, the public seems to be scared silly about a complete gun ban.
All while the mass killing continue.... The public didnt have the guts to do anything when a bunch of elementary kids got killed. Doesn't seem likely to start now. It is horribly depressing.
In this case, I think the risk of a "backlash" against Muslims generally beyond what we already have is exactly zero -- everybody's already staked out their respective political positions and has for years. The idea that gay people would become Republicans over this is laughable, thanks to the Republicans being themselves. It would be nice to have some more backlash about gun control but that won't happen either. Among the many horrible and frustrating things about this incident is that it will change exactly nothing* and everyone will continue on with their dumbass repetitive political script that we've seen for years.
*unless we get Democratic control of all three branches, when you will see some (relatively minor) gun control requirements, which are good, but will only happen in that fairly unlikely eventuality.
It would be nice to have some more backlash about gun control but that won't happen either.
I think what net political impact we do see from this shooting will be anti-backlash (if that makes sense) on gun control. That is, by making the issue of gun control more salient (which will happen regardless of what Clinton or other Democrats do), you'll increase the chances of single-issue, low-information, low-engagement voters bothering to vote against Clinton because of their guns. I suspect there aren't many of them (mostly because of the low-engagement criteria), but they certainly outnumber single-issue, low-information, low-engagement pro-gun control votes.
The problem with that is that the vast majority of these events are over long before the mythical "good guy with a gun" can stop it.
That's one problem. Other problems include:
1) Everybody thinks he/she is the good guy.
2) The number of situations in which that scenario would work (and admittedly, this number is larger than zero) would be completely fucking swamped by a tidal wave of accidental discharges and "normal" arguments/confrontations escalating into shootouts.
I mean, yeah, "responsible gun owners" yadda yadda yadda. But facts is facts: we have a nation full of half-wits that need warning labels not to eat the desiccant packs in their bags of pepperoni or put sunscreen in their eyes.
If the initial reports were accurate, wasn't this kind of the heroic bystander scenario gun advocates imagine? Early reports said some guy, I think an off-duty cop, exchanged fire with the shooter, except he still got inside the club and murdered a bunch of people anyway.
77: also no true Scotsman: if there's an incident in which foreseeable human error leads to a tragedy, then the persons involved were not truly conscientious, because if they had been, no error would have happened. The responsible gun owner is a Platonic unicorn at this point.
The responsible gun owners keep their guns locked in safes.
78: an extra-duty cop, not an off-duty one, I think. The BBC says he was "working at the nightclub". (And also adds, oddly, that he was "in full uniform", as though we might have thought he was stripped to the waist or something.) The shooting started inside, then the shooter left and got into a firefight with the policeman, then returned inside the club. Not clear how he got in initially.
as though we might have thought he was stripped to the waist
Cops aren't always stripped to the waist in Florida?
A civil-right violation if ever there was.
And also adds, oddly, that he was "in full uniform", as though we might have thought he was stripped to the waist or something
They have the option of specifying what you wear. Wal Mart likes full uniform, Goldman Sachs likes business attire.
And if so, how often are gswift's sexy abs put on display?
That's one problem. Other problems include:
1) Everybody thinks he/she is the good guy.
2) The number of situations in which that scenario would work (and admittedly, this number is larger than zero) would be completely fucking swamped by a tidal wave of accidental discharges and "normal" arguments/confrontations
Agreed.
The poll question:
If you were trapped in that bathroom, would you want to have a gun? [feel free to change it to "classroom with small children."]
For some reason, that is more powerful than:
Do you want to be at the mall/store/sporting event/fraternity party, when two armed people start arguing?
87: Totally. Often gigs like full uniform but sometimes they want something a little more discreet. When I worked the Union Pacific shareholder meeting they wanted me in a suit.
To be clear, this is official police work? And the company pays the police, or what?
Yeah, that's a totally ordinary thing. It's not official police work exactly, but the police force allows cops to moonlight as security guards while maintaining their, um, persona? as police officers. I guess the idea is sort of that you are a police officer 24-7, regardless of whether you're on duty, so there's no harm in wearing a police uniform while moonlighting for a private company.
To be clear, if you want somebody without a shirt, I think you have to hire a stripper.
I don't know. Swift has conspicuously not answered 88.
They had to bring it all in house here. That is, you have to book through the city. There used to be issues about potential corruption (and, I assume, somebody just being too tired to work) because some were making so much more money on side jobs than the main one.
91: You can hire cops for events, traffic control, etc. It's hourly and it's off duty guys. You can't pay to have more of the on duty people at your location or anything. You contact the department and we have a website for signing up for these jobs. Some are closed lists you have to get on like the Vivint Arena or Goldman Sachs or OC Tanner. Others are open for anyone. There's always concerts, traffic control for a movie shoot or construction site, etc. A not uncommon type is "we just fired someone who we think might come back and shoot up the place so we want a cop here all day for the next week or two." Base rate to get a SLCPD officer is 30 an hour. Sometimes they offer more if it's a crappy one like traffic control for the mall at Christmas or a Black Friday.
When I worked the Union Pacific shareholder meeting they wanted me in a suit.
Let me guess, your job was to "discretely" stand behind the shareholders with a blackjack when it came time to vote?
I, for one, would much rather debate whether gswift is more sexy stripper cop or union-busting hired out by the Man cop than to think about the horrors of Orlando.
I was surprised the Union Pacific still exists under that name. Like seeing a coelacanth in the swimming pool.
If you got to Omaha more often, you would know such things.
100: The Union Busting Stripper niche is probably wide open, if anyone's interested.
Swift has conspicuously not answered 88.
No titty bars! Or regular bars for that matter.
They had to bring it all in house here. That is, you have to book through the city.
That's how it is here. The signups are through a city owned site, there's a limit on how many closed lists you be on, how many you can be the primary contact on, and so forth. I do it from time to time but nothing regular. My wife makes basically the same as I do and I'd rather have the free time than the money.
Union Pacific is no longer the largest for-profit employer in the city. I just looked it up. Apparently something called "First Data" does credit card processing and has more employees.
It is still the largest railroad in the U.S.
I think 75 is backward. The gun-rights people are super engaged every election, the gun-control people are mostly apathetic.
So do these 'off-duty' cops still have regular authority and legal presumptions, like they can arrest someone as a police not as a citizen?
Amazingly, or not amazingly because history, the US still doesn't have a single national freight railroad. The UP bought up the remnants of the old Southern Pacific and a bunch of other stuff, st but it's only west the Mississippi. The Burlington Northern/Santa Fe is also only a western railroad. The other lines, like the Norfolk Southern, are only in the East and are descendants of various eastern railroads. But you can't take goods by train from LA to NY on a single freight railroad line.
BNSF and UP both have very heavy and visible presence in Chicago, which is hundreds of miles east of the Mississippi.
Should have said Chicago. But they don't have a presence west of Chicago.
Which is kind of arguably the reason for Chicago in the first place.
And I meant "east of Chicago" in 110. Fuck this subtangent.
Both BNSF and Union Pacific are even names of lines on the Chicago commuter rail. Which somehow does not get delayed by the freight traffic like our beloved Amtrak does.
Let me guess, your job was to "discretely" stand behind the shareholders with a blackjack when it came time to vote?
Surely that's better than standing behind someone continuously with a blackjack.
Not if you only get paid for time when you're actually threatening somebody with a blackjack.
Has the railway freight thing ever in fact hindered monopolistic behavior? It seems to be the most cumbersome possible approach.
Surely that's better than standing behind someone continuously with a blackjack.
One passes from discrete to continuous blackjacking by taking the appropriate limit. Heebie can explain the technicalities.
Various holding companies or even individuals* may have controlled national "systems" at various points, but it was difficult enough to break into new territory that companies stayed mostly regional. The Pennsylvania Railroad tried to build into the southwest to LA** but got beat by the Southern Pacific, which I don't think tried to go beyond New Orleans.
Railroads often had local monopolies and then legal or illegal pooling agreements when covering overlapping territories.
* Gould, Huntington, Harriman maybe
** But I think that was really Tom Scott, head of the Penn RR's project, and it was called something like the Texas & Pacific and anyway Scott died trying it
For some reason, the public seems to be scared silly about a complete gun ban.
Most likely because there's a substantial number of people who call for confiscating all firearms after each of these events. Specifically, they speak or write admiringly about restrictive gun laws in England, Australia and Japan.
A high school friend I am for some reason facebook friends with posted a link about how sorry the pope is about all this and I maybe did not respond in the very most loving way.
Surely I can kick in money somewhere instead?
The idea that gay people would become Republicans over this is laughable, thanks to the Republicans being themselves.
Not so laughable in the not so long term. With the marriage thing settled, there's the real possibility of wealthy, probably white gays drifting right, and the republicans seem to be shutting the fuck up about it as the polls shift toward "I do not harbor a smoldering, potentially violent hatred for gay people."
Except you said "over this" which makes my comment a bit of point-missing. Hello, thread. You are all mine. I have always wanted a thread.
If anybody wants to potentially offend Hulk Hogan or Peter Whatever, you can read Gawker outing somebody for the cause of good. Or at least with a reason.
Here the cops doing "detail" work off -duty get paid overtime rates, and the client (sometimes a municipality putting in a road) pays the town or city. There are a few cops in the city of Boston who make more than the mayor that way.
I just saw that headline and assumed Gawker did it for clicks without fact-checking, but I really don't like Gawker and also don't know what good it does us to know that the massacreur liked cock.
Now's probably a good time to write some angry letters about the ban on blood donations from gay men, right? I was a little surprised over seeing calls for blood donation -- is the supply that tight? I mean, blood donation is great, and I do it regularly, but it was surprising to me that it was a thing to do in the wake of tragedy.
129: The Gawker thing is sourced through to other news orgs (mainly the Orlando Sentinel, plus Chris Hayes on MSNBC).
They won't let me donate blood because of British beef.
I realized recently that I have a semi-conscious intention never to donate blood even if they change the rules because it has stuck in my craw for decades and fuck you infinitely forever. I mean not you, obviously.
Probably ok if I post this message sent out to all affiliates at work from the director regarding our upcoming annual blood drive:
From the 1980s until last year, the FDA recommended a lifetime ban against blood donations by men who have sex with men (MSM, in public health parlance) -- out of concern about a higher risk of HIV transmission to the blood supply. Based on a scientific review, the policy was changed last December to a 12-month waiting period. Of course, for many, this does not make a practical difference. Some reviews of the scientific literature have suggested that there may be other approaches that could protect the blood supply while allowing broader participation.
As it happens, I had drafted an email to send out this morning about this topic in connection with our annual June blood drive. Last year, a (community member redacted) had expressed his concern to our leadership team that the blood drive is a yearly reminder that he -- and many others -- are not permitted to donate.
The events in Orlando have made the issue far more poignant.
Excluding some people based on group risk -- rather than individual risk -- is a form of "profiling." It involves not only scientific considerations, but also moral issues. It merits serious concern and careful scrutiny.
Because we are a science-based community that values all of our members, we concluded that (we) should sponsor a working group to review the literature and, where appropriate, propose policy changes to the FDA. If you are interested in participating, please contact (redacted)
133: Yep, I think you are completely in the right. The way it's been handled seems really disrespectful, even if there are valid reasons. I'm not up on the science, but my gut is that it's ridiculous. For me, the math is different in that it's a free, low-impact way to do a little good.
134: Excellent.
Killers in America work seven days a week
133: I realized recently that I have a semi-conscious intention never to donate blood even if they change the rules because it has stuck in my craw for decades and fuck you infinitely forever.
My brother is gay and HIV-positive. I believe I've heard that the rules have changed in that particular situation -- though these rules are still absurd -- and I'd hate to think he'd refuse.
Erm, generally speaking, I'd not refuse to donate. Blood banks are in dire straits, from what I understand. I myself can't donate because my blood is laced with a medication for a pre-existing condition; but refusing to donate out of pique doesn't make sense to me.
I'm pretty sure if you're confirmed HIV+ you can't ever donate.
137: My understanding is that blood banks require a full year of celibacy for gay men to donate. Obviously, HIV+ is a disqualifier. I'm not sure what the rule is for women who've "had sex with a man who's had sex with another man" as the questionnaire puts it. So, yes, they've relaxed the lifetime ban, but it's still extremely restrictive. And frankly, I think it's pretty sad that they assume gay men in monogamous relationships are at risk in a different way than I am.
I don't know if they still do, but I think they used to go out to three degrees of separation- men who had sex with women who had sex with men who had sex with men. I don't think they worried about lesbians much though so women who had sex with women who had sex with men who had sex with men were ok, unless women having sex with women was itself banned.
And frankly, I think it's pretty sad that they assume gay men in monogamous relationships are at risk in a different way than I am.
I know! You are such a slut!
Sorry.
141: Only the blood banks can judge me!
...women who've "had sex with a man who's had sex with another man" as the questionnaire puts it.
Even if you say no to that, the question still misses the "Mrs. Senator Craig" factor, or whatever you want to call it.
I really don't like Gawker and also don't know what good it does us to know that the massacreur liked cock.
It only helps the conservatives with their fucked up rationales.
I remember being asked those questions when I used to give blood, before I took blood pressure medication. Since I'm no longer required to take it I may go back to giving regularly.
Anyway it was probably in 2004, due to the topicality of it, that I observed to the nurse that the question about having sex with a native of certain African countries would exclude John Kerry. She had no idea what I was talking about.
I doubt anyone wants Kerry's blood anyway. Too blue.
My dad said that when you donated blood in the 50s, you got a shot a whisky. Because it makes your face flush, which must mean it's a magic blood increaser.
Modern medicine is great and all, but I really think we've lost something now that if I feel flush or faint, nobody will sprint and get me brandy.
140: They did. "Well, I've been raped, so I really don't know" wasn't the most fun conversation I've ever had, but I'm anemic enough that no one wants my blood now even if there aren't that kind of queer cooties.
Yeah, one guy on my freshman year dorm floor wasn't allowed to give blood because his girlfriend was from Angola.
Idi Amin had trouble because he was from Africa and because he never used a meat thermometer for his cannibalism.
Because the Red Cross won't take my blood, I always worry that I have big holes opening in my brain from prions or whatever. Then I worry that I have little holes opening in my brain because of a family history of Alzheimer's disease from one parent and stroke from the other. Then I figure, fuck it. If it does go, I won't (usually) know. Somebody else's problem.
If my family were important enough to have a motto, it would have been "Self awareness is seriously overrated."
I don't think I've ever been rejected for anemia, but I've certainly come close.
I get rejected on British beef too. The BSE scare in 2000, along with moving to Iowa City and finding myself downwind of pig farms, were the irrational catalysts in my quitting meat. Not to start another meat thread.
I once had a summer job building hog confinement buildings and the like. I feel that stopping that is such a big ethical improvement that I can eat meat while being ethically sound by any standard that is graded on a curve.
Anyway, I miss donating blood. It was about the easiest good deed I ever did. I never had trouble with anemia or not being able to fill the bag or passing out.
I don't miss the hog confinement stuff. It smelled really bad unless you were on rare job that was 100% pre-hog.
I really don't like Gawker and also don't know what good it does us to know that the massacreur liked cock.
This was absolutely my first reaction too (along with the visceral disgust for reading about anyone who has taken the lives of fifty decent human beings as if their inner lives and personal achievements haven't forfeited all fucking claims on my limited time -- not judging anyone else's reactions, but that's how it always is for me). I will qualify it by wondering if it's analogous to the discussions of toxic masculinity that happened after the Santa Barbara killings. That bugged me to no end too, but it didn't seem completely out of line as a thing to consider. I'm not sure I can pin down why I'm skeptical about the explanatory value of "self-hating homo" here -- I probably underestimate the body count of that pathology compared to resentful misogyny -- but still.
My pessimism has a good track record of being way off, so if I declare now that there is no hope for changes to the gun lobby in my lifetime, we'll probably see major improvements within a few years. You're welcome.
I never did visit Iowa City. I had all kinds of chances. I just drove by.
HIV prions anemia morons with guns: the silent killer
You missed at minimum Rusty the giant sloth.
One of my teachers at Iowa pronounced "sloth" to rhyme with "both," which I found ludicrous and disputed, and was peeved to learn that Merriam-Webster listed his pronunciation first.
I really should have stopped the car in Iowa for more than just gas and the one time I had to throw up in Davenport.
If I would have gotten up earlier, I could have thrown up in Iowa City.
In the winter, frozen vomit hangs around Iowa City a long time.
Both BNSF and Union Pacific are even names of lines on the Chicago commuter rail. Which somehow does not get delayed by the freight traffic like our beloved Amtrak does.
BNSF gets delayed by freight traffic. And by Amtrak. And by "switch problems" and "late arrival of equipment" and "passenger loading" and "mechanical problems" and "pedestrian incidents."
UP seems a little more reliable generally.
I really don't like Gawker and also don't know what good it does us to know that the massacreur liked cock.
Well it does serve to undercut the evil Muslim immigrant refugee lone wolf sleeper terrorist immigrant Muslim terrorist narrative the right wingers have been pushing.
Speaking of Orlandos, we watched the beginning of the 1936 As You Like It on YouTube because the kid wanted to see it, and my word but young Laurence Olivier was hot.
I didn't know Tony Orlando was working back then.
I really don't like Gawker and also don't know what good it does us to know that the massacreur liked cock.
I don't really like this comment, but I am pleased to acquire the new-to-me word "massacreur" so I'm going to focus on that.
On the other hand, I kind of share your feelings about giving blood, ever since the days when the ban extended to "if you've *ever* had sex with men" and I was an HIV- little prude who hadn't had any of the worrisome varieties of sex for years since my last test. Now that the donation rules are liberalising, I'm trying to get over it, but years of having to put up with that kind of bullshit can cut a pretty deep "well, fuck you then" groove.
I used to give blood regularly, but got out of the habit because I visited the Amazon and was banned from donating for a year because of whatever tropical diseases they were worried I might have picked up.
Fun story to distract from this otherwise depressing thread: during a blood drive in college, a girl I sort of knew went to give blood and was refused because her heart rate was abnormally high. It turned that the volunteer who was taking her pulse was a guy she had a huge crush on, which caused her heart rate to shoot up. Too cute!
men who had sex with women who had sex with men who had sex with men
Nah, it just doesn't flow as well.
I have a much easier time ignoring the odiousness of the restrictions on blood donation by thinking of it entirely in selfish terms (lowering blood iron levels).
her heart rate was abnormally high. It turned that the volunteer who was taking her pulse was a guy she had a huge crush on
Heh. I once TA'd a class where I was demonstrating a polygraph, basically using the "lie detector" angle to explain EEG, EMG, and GSR. Once I was all hooked up to the electrodes, the students -- by which I mean the girl students -- started right into me about, am I hot for any of them (which, bless my naïve little younger self, I didn't even see coming). As a matter of fact, I was privately smitten with one of the boys (a rower, woof), which, as an ethical teacher of the young people, I was quite determined to keep to myself.
I can't remember what I said, but I found a reason to get the electrodes off pretty fast.
I don't really like this comment.
Sorry if I was overly cavalier about a horrible situation.
Also I don't know why I felt compelled to have Thelma Ritter do my apologizing just then.
138: I'm pretty sure if you're confirmed HIV+ you can't ever donate.
Huh. What am I thinking of, I wonder. I could have sworn I'd heard somewhat recently that new guidelines allow HIV+ people to donate ... was it the ability to donate, say, a liver to other HIV+ people. Maybe?
Yes, that was it. Organ donation. Sorry for my confusion.
What do you think this thread is about?
Oh man. Let's say you discount 181 by 50% for hyperbole (not saying it is hyperbole, just being cautious). It's still beyond terrifying
Trump is the moderate, presentable version of the part of America represented by his followers.
What did you people think a NC Trump rally would look like? Of course it's like a live gathering of youtube commenters.
How would a NC Trump rally look like any other kind? Are there polite thoughtful Oregon Trump rallies or something?
I'm pretty sure that at this point the worst bits of southern culture are pretty spread out across America, and Trump gets to talk to them wherever he goes.
Making Light has a good Orlando thread with some excellent compassion empathy links toward the bottom. I read most.
Complaining about Clinton's bloodthirsty speech, and that it was more concrete specific and predictive than Trump's vague racism might be inappropriate. Might not.
Trump might kill people overseas. Clinton promises to. But Trump makes it more dangerous for people here I suppose. Why do I have to vote for either?
I hate to say this, but regarding 181: from under which rock do these people crawl? I of course know that there are troglodytes among us, but in such great numbers? What are the numbers? How many people attended this rally and behaved in such a manner, said -- or muttered -- such things?
I see that several leftish sites have long discussion threads on Trump's Greensboro rally and Sexton's live tweet from it; I'm not really seeing much coverage in the mainstream media. Is that because Trump has blocked some of the MSM from his rallies? I don't think so. Are the mainstream media just not attending these things any more?
190.2: I suspect it's mostly that "Trump rallies are full of people saying/doing outrageous things, and are either openly violent or thick with the potential for violence" has now become a "Dog bites man" story.
I wonder about this because I've begun to see Trump signs here and there. I found myself driving behind a car bearing a Trump bumper sticker. My coworker relayed the news that he was recently at an estate sale in an area not far north of my own abode in which he viewed numerous Trump electoral lawn signs.
Um. It would be good to engage in shaming by association, wouldn't it? Let the people who apparently support Trump know just who they're claiming association with.
I've seen exactly one piece of Trump anything, a bumper sticker on an Infiniti driving out of my office building. Felt literally shocking. You are in West LA, fool! Don't you know where you are! Other than that I've seen zero Trump anything. To my knowledge, I know absolutely no Trump supporters; I do have (very few) Republican friends and friendquaintances, but they have been dead silent on Trump; the only ones whose votes I know of voted for Kasich and were extremely anti-Trump. I guess this is a definition of a bubble but it feels like a completely incomprehensible band of others doing completely mysterious things exclusively on TV and teh internet.
191: has now become a "Dog bites man" story.
I confess I don't really understand what this means.
194: It's a journalistic aphorism (I don't know from where) which goes something like: "Dog bites man" isn't a story. "Man bites dog", now that's a story.
Felt literally shocking.
Indeed, which is why it seems important to let these assholes with the Trump lawn signs know just what they're claiming solidarity with, and how shockingly unacceptable it is to normal people.
I don't really want to engage in outrage commenting, but the relative silence about what apparently goes on a Trump rally these days strikes me as malfeasance.
I should sign off due to excessive disturbance.
195, 196, thanks. Sorry I was too kerfuffled to figure it out myself.
This is the first time in a long time I've been tempted to deface signs, in this case the Trump lawn signs. Last time I did that was in 1984, when some asshole had spray-painted a "KKK" sign on an overpass in my home town. We (my boyfriend and his mother and brother and I) climbed up there and xxx'ed it out thus: XXX. Sometimes you just have to say enough.
One of the deli guys, himself an Italian immigrant, at one of the local Italian markets was joking a couple weekends ago about supporting Trump. He was clearly doing it for shock value; it was decidedly less clear whether he was kidding on the square.
There was always going to be massive tribalistic support from ranks and file Republicans for the nominee, no matter who it is, but I do think that the swift closing of ranks among GOP pols gave permission to the vast majority ope Republicans to embrace him rather than to grudgingly vote for him/against her.
Which isn't surprising, but is depressing.
I've seen exactly one piece of Trump anything, a bumper sticker on an Infiniti driving out of my office building. Felt literally shocking.
Here, a big TRUMP sticker on a folder a woman riding the A train was holding. I was surprised, and spent the next few stops analyzing her appearance out of the corner of my eye to figure out if there were any stylistic tip-offs to explain what was going on with her.
Then I realized that she was a middle-aged white woman in a navy dress with a white collar. That is, appearance-wise, me. So I gave up.
I do think that the swift closing of ranks among GOP pols gave permission to the vast majority ope Republicans to embrace him rather than to grudgingly vote for him/against her.
Right, sure, rank and file Republicans among us may support Trump under that banner, but again: shame them. If he's their nominee, they have to give up the presidential election this round. Period.
It's a journalistic aphorism (I don't know from where) which goes something like: "Dog bites man" isn't a story. "Man bites dog", now that's a story.
One of my dearest possessions is the front page of the Cambridge Evening Post with the block headline "MAN BITES DOG BEFORE DEATH AT SHOP". You could set that one up and then retire a happy journalist.
Complaining about Clinton's bloodthirsty speech, and that it was more concrete specific and predictive than Trump's vague racism might be inappropriate. Might not.
My 2011 prediction that bob will be a Republican by 2019 still looks good.
Jesus, don't do that without linking to the story you're talking about. I thought something terrible had happened and I'd missed it. (I presume you mean the Jo Cox murder story?)
I mean how much more shocking do you want? It's not like you have privately owned assault rifles and free-rangne alligators over there.
So awful. The news this week has me unusually rattled. Maybe displaced fears about the (U.S.) election are behind the rattlement.
Beyond awful. At least we have the naval battle on the Thames between a pro-Brexit fleet of fishing boats and Bob Geldorf's yacht flotilla to laugh at.
210. Not that funny. The MP who was murdered was on one of the boats, apparently.
Yikes. You guys are supposed to be the non-murdery ones.
Yeah sorry, still depressed. Also I apparently missed a chance to break my temperance streak with free ouzo last night, at a going-away party for a Google-bound colleague, so let's loop a tiny violin over this week's vast Requiem mass.
There's some evidence that he was a deranged Brexiteer. The police are saying nothing as yet, as they should, but press witness interviews etc.
207: not that the Jo Cox thing wasn't awful, but I already knew about it, so I thought something else might have happened.
204: I assumed Barry was referring to this https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/1290205/the-steamy-pictures-that-reveal-taylor-swift-and-tom-hiddlestons-secret-romance-to-the-world/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunNewspaper-_-20160616-_-Showbiz%2FCelebrity-_-494971697-_-Imageandlink
178: I shouldn't have left my comment on your comment without further comment. I just flinch whenever I hear something that sounds like ye olde "it's nobody's business where you put your dick" response to someone's being outed. Which I think was not really your point anyway.
The Republicans I know fucking hate Trump. If you ever wondered who "don't say the quiet parts loud" was designed to fool -- I know them personally.
