Traumatize your children early and often.

Afterwards in the hall Romney called Santos a “sick puppy”….reminding us all of his fraudulent charity that stole donations from a homeless veteran’s sick dog who then died because he couldn’t afford the treatment the donations were raised for.
…and…
Inadvertently reminded us of what a sick puppy Romney is himself because he took a family vacation 600 miles to frigid Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof, and when the terrified dog had diarrhea that blew everywhere he simply hosed off the traumatized sick puppy and put the poor wet scared hypothermic dog back on the roof for the rest of the freezing 12 hour freeway drive.

He’s their best, most moral and ethical representative today, a horrific animal abuser with magic underwear.

This is just stupid.. fireworks in general. Oohhh bright lights/loud noises!!! For the amount of accidents that happen, people/wildlife that are disturbed and house pets that are traumatized there is really no reason these should be allowed anywhere for any reason. Goes for all firecrackers too.

Yeah. If it was that painful / traumatic he would just leave the room. Totally playing it for views.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the next few seconds after this video ended the police gave the white kid a hug/handshake/pad in the back to smooth his traumatic emotions by the look of things.

Just a anecdotal based response: Left my 3 year old, who was asleep buckled in his seat (which he cannot undo), in the car on an overcast day, 68 degrees out, doors locked. I left a second cell phone on monitor, so I could hear him if he woke up. Went in to a strip mall store 50 yards away from the car.
I hear him wake up, so I come out to check on him, and there's some man, apparently having banged on the window to wake him up, looking at me like I was trying to kill him. Apparently took my license plat and called child services, who eventually called me, my wife, my parents, and did a full investigation. I had almost the same experience, but I'm white and privileged so did not get arrested or have my children removed. I'm confident it could have been a lot worse if I was near the poverty line. I also received a similar lecture:
"We recognize that temperature and weather were ok, but do you recognize how unsafe it was to leave him unsupervised?"
"No, I don't. What could have happened? He was secure and unable to come out of the chair, the doors were locked, and he was monitored"
"Well some one could have smashed the window and taken him"
"Really? A stranger abduction, from a locked car, in broad daylight?"
"Well, what about if the police were called, and you were arrested in front of him. Wouldn't that be traumatic?"

And there they are right. And there you have it - the real danger is not any ACTUAL danger, it's our own fear. FDR had it right.

"HAHAH! YAY! HE'S TRAUMATIZED! HILARIOUS!!!"

Fucking dipshits.

This makes me angry.

I agree. His plan was to traumatize the entire class with his in your face suicide....assuming they have the story correct.
Pretending he was only going to harm himself, so deserves compassion, is not being honest or rational, imo.
I'm glad no one was hurt, but he definitely intended to severely hurt everyone in that classroom emotionally. I would hazard a guess that he expected some of them to be traumatized enough to follow his example. In school suicides often lead to more suicides.

*quality traumatizing. Go Claire.

Lots of good comments here... this might take a while so bear with me.

@Mordhaus, I haven't read that book but I'd be interested to see his sources. Everything I've googled suggests the rate is really low.

As for Ford, obviously, I can't say for certain whether she is telling the truth. She may even believe she is telling the truth and still be wrong. I think she was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in terms of an investigation. Of course, it's possible she was doing this for political reasons, but that feels like a stretch to me.

@bcglorf
In some ways, I can understand the desire to remove the vexatious complaints cause. Coming forward with a report of sexual assault is traumatic enough already.
A) you may not be believed
B) even if you are, you're in for an experience many assault survivors have described as "being raped a second time"
If you add the possibility that your complaint could potentially get you sanctioned if no one believes you, that's a pretty awful situation to be in.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this stance, but I can understand it. I think you would need to clear a very high bar to prove a complaint is malicious. Presumption of innocence applies to the complainant also.

"The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. "
100% fine with this. You can be a creepy sleazebag without touching someone and it's still not ok.

"lots of people are very much arguing that lives should be destroyed then and there"
Sorry, I just don't see it. That said, if there are people arguing for that... I'm against them.

"We'll even right songs to laugh at them when they complain."
This song was mocking the bullshit "it's a scary time to be a man" line, and deservedly so. I'm a man, and I'm not scared of being accused of sexual assault. None of my male friends are scared either. But it fucking crushes my soul to think of how many of the women in my life have ACTUALLY experienced some form of sexual assault (and that's just the ones I know of).

@scheherazade
Completely agree that eyewitness testimony is borderline useless in terms of evidence. Go back through my comment history... you'll see I even said I doubt you could prove Kavanaugh's guilt. All I've ever said is that it warrants an investigation. (sidenote: I totally agree with @vil and @Mordhaus on this... polygraphs are junk science, but Kavanaugh's boorish behaviour should have been grounds not to confirm him).

Regarding your friend that was raped by a girl: that's awful, and yes, we really have to stop this childish attitude of somehow thinking female on male rape is either funny or that the guy was lucky. But it is unrelated to this discussion.

@MilkmanDan, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

Being falsely accused of rape would be terrible, even if you weren't convicted. No disagreement there at all.

Short answer: yes. 100%.

Long answer:
Well, let's unpack this.

"the acts of a 17 yr old boy"
I did some dumb shit when I was a kid. Nothing major, but I certainly wasn't a choir boy. But this isn't some drunken hijinx. It isn't even some petty crime.

This is an accusation of violent sexual assault.

Now, even then, I'd be willing to grant that people can change. If he'd paid his due, apologised, and proved he had changed, I'd be willing to say that everyone deserves a shot at redemption.

But...
"no other history of repeat offense"
you mean apart from the other two women accusing him of sexual assault?

Finally...
"destroy a career"
Let's cut this bullshit right here. Your career is not "destroyed" if you don't get to sit on the supreme court. I'm a software developer. I'll never work for Google or Apple or Facebook or whatever, but career is doing fine, thanks.

It's the Supreme Court... it should literally be the elite of the elite in legal minds. If you've got two candidates who are identical in all respects except one got slightly better marks in high school, you take that one BECAUSE YOU CAN.

Kavanaugh is clearly not the best available. If nothing else, this process has shown that he is woefully unsuitable for this position. He has constantly lied, deflected and then become hysterical (and yes, I'm using that particular word very deliberately).

But what saddens about this whole thing (and it really shouldn't surprise me at this point) is the hypocrisy of the right. Because it's Trumps pick, they're all "it's just youthful exuberance" and "let bygones be bygones" where you know if the tables were turned and it was a democratic pick who had even a minor misdemeanour they would be screaming from the rooftops.

The funny thing is, I still think that Kavanaugh (whatever I may personally think of the slimy fuck-weasel) deserves the presumption of innocence. If he really was the guy he's made out to be by the right, he would have said "I'm innocent, but of course this should be investigated. I am terribly sorry for this woman. She has obviously been through a traumatic incident, but she has me confused for someone else." and then it would have been investigated, probably nothing would be found (due to the age of the claims and the difficulty of gathering evidence).

He could have handled this with humility, sympathy and dignity.

But he failed every possible test. He has shown himself utterly unfit to be on the supreme court, and quite frankly, he's shown himself to be a poor excuse for a human. Fuck him so very much.

Your video, The psychology of post-traumatic stress disorder, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@jwray

*facepalm*

You realize the link you just posted is titled "IQ dominates socioeconomic background data for white men" (my emphasis).

Sure, there is a correlation between IQ and crime and it is hotly contested to what that actually means.

To some, that means only dumb criminals actually get caught (meaning we don't know the true average IQ of criminals because the smart ones get away with it).

To others, it reflects the socioeconomic status of the people most likely to commit crimes (i.e. likely grew up poor in a neighborhood without strong educational opportunities and therefore does not share the cultural values that IQ tests inherently load into the questions and furthermore the test-taker may be openly hostile to standardized test-taking).

To still others it reflects the RESULTS of crime (i.e. leading a criminal lifestyle makes it more likely that you are going to suffer traumatic physical injuries to the head that literally make you dumber).

The 7-8 point difference you quoted is not nearly enough to make a difference on the crime rates. 100 IQ is the normally distributed mean and Japanese people on average, score around 106. For reference, a standard deviation on the IQ test is 15 points, meaning that for all intents and purposes Japanese people are still roughly in the same ballpark as Americans with their 98-point average.

And literally the first Google search result when I looked up Japanese IQ scores was this one, explaining how national average IQ scores correlate with the per capita income and national rates of economic development.

In other words, economic factors correlate with IQ, which correlates with negatively with crime, which seems to further reinforce the idea that socioeconomic forces are a key factor in criminal behavior.

Look, we're getting really far afield of what the video is about. I think it is a no-brainer that few gun crimes are committed in Japan because guns are so heavily regulated. We do have stabbings, in fact we have mass stabbings (which is something you don't see so often in the U.S.). The thing we both agree on is that it is impossible for the U.S. to replicate these crime statistic results, whether that be for cultural reasons or whatever other cause you want to throw out there.