I'm a Christian, and I absolutely detest American "thoughts and prayers"-ism. It's done so much damage to America (or abroad) and not just passively let evil deeds to keep happening, it also created and justified many of those deeds. Especially on gun violence, it's downright vile and the 2nd amendment "interpretation" (more like ignoring 100% of the context and 80% of the text before & after "right to bear arms").

This toxic combo of "thoughts & prayers" and "rights to bear arms".... is this "American Exceptionalism"? It happens to no other countries, and I don't see many of their government are less "democratic" or "free," nor its citizens have less rights.

The passivity of whole "thoughts and prayers" is NOT what Jesus said, nor what Jesus wants its followers do. If people read the NT, then they'll know Jesus is more of a SJW progressive/activist than what half of the US - the right leaning people - say Jesus is.

Oh, the all-too-easy "my heart breaks for..." whatever tragedy a politician/faith leaders heard and then DON'T do anything that they can help bring legislation to minimize said tragedy? Just as bad and hypocritical.

What gives a "law abiding" citizen the right to bare mass killing machine guns? Or owning hundreds and thousands of ammo in a home? For self-defense? Is that necessary? Really it's just a twisted sense of entitlement/freedom or some kind of nihilistic fetish. You know, I have the crazy "Borat" idea that if I'm an American (I'm Canadian, so I don't have the "right" to do anything directly), I'd troll the far-right Republican cultists using my Christian "credential" to demand my right to bear ANY arms... like anything from bombs, grenades to tanks, fighter jets and nuclear missiles as a private collection as long as I can afford it (Hooray, Capitalism!). It's my freaking "God"-given right! Carry the selective 2nd amendment reading to the extreme to see how ridiculous the status quo already is! ... But the thing is, I'm not sure anymore if there already IS a critical mass of far-right crazies that really believe what I said make total sense.

While your statement can be taken as fact, this story however is based on this legend: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cigarson/.

The Snopes article itself is from 2000.

Rarely are lawyers THAT stupid (those that are, gets appointed as judges by the likes of Trump to do the Republican's biddings), nor are insurers that passive in NOT fighting it out in court. They don't want these precedents to stand.

Thanks to BSR for having this posted. This is the sort of stuff that needs to get more airtime and eyeballs.

I think that pairs to the worst crime the left has been involved in related to the dumpster fire that is today. The entire notion of de-platforming or silencing 'offensive' speech, and that Universities have if anything been leading the way. Universities need to instead be having guys like the one here getting their views known more broadly, and then point out loudly what is considered bad and dangerous about them. More importantly, to also point out how closely it aligns with Trump and his rallying cries.

When the left could have been discrediting this filth, they have instead been accomplishing the opposite by actively rallying moderates to 'defend' the freedom of speech of these guys.

The passive majority has been watching for a long time as advocates on the left have used force and violence to disrupt speech they don't like. Now, cities are burning and despite it being for entirely other reasons, you have a lot of middle america only seeing the same angry mob of leftists at the same stuff again as before. Demand everyone do things their way or violence will be used. The worst/scariest thing to me is the Dems still seem confused by how people aren't flocking to them in the face of Trumps malice. They somehow can not fathom that there are an awful lot of right leaning people honestly worried that their only choice is between a Trump they loath in most everyway, but on the other side and angry mob of leftists willing to use violence on anyone that doesn't conform. If Trump wins the next election I'll be sickened, but also entirely unsurprised.

Passive aggressive douchebag's wet dream.

Lol. Did I do that?

@HerbWatson said:
You've clearly got a lot to unload, I hope 2020 is a better year for you. You've got issues pal,

I'm sorry you feel my explanation is an attempt to argue. At least I didn't directly attribute those issues to you or otherwise personally insult you except for the fast and loose with facts bit, which I stand by....you can't say the same.

Maybe be correct instead of hyperbolic and exaggerating, and not disrespectfully snarky and passive aggressive when challenged and you'll have more pleasant discussions.

The miniscule amount of milk I drink means water use isn't my concern....but it is in a general big picture sense, especially if we all switch to non dairy milk as you suggested.

Have a Festive Festivus and a better 2020. Bye.

Thank you for your reply Harlequinn.

I beg to differ: The rate of gun deaths in the USA is only low when compared to countries that are either active (civil-) war zones or basically run by drug cartels. When compared to other, similar developed countries, it is at least 4 times as high (when excluding suicides/accidents) .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I would call that a significant deviation from the norm and stand by my use of "staggering".

You compare gun deaths to deaths from car crashes. Others have already pointed out that one of the main differences is that cars are not tools for killing that are put into public hands and furthermore, since I asked you the question (that you did not answer): "Is the reason for the Second Amendment worth the amount of gun violence in the USA?", my follow up question would be: I can show you the (financial, societal, etc.) benefits of cars (i.e. individual travel by car) for the society, what exactly are the benefits of private gun ownership?
(Whether cars are really worth it, is a whole other discussion.)

Regarding suicide rates, this seems to be a compelling argument until you notice that suicide rates in some, equally developed countries and some lesser developed countries are higher than in the USA and that the number of gun killings that are not suicide is still way higher than in comparable countries (see above).

I do not think that gun violence in the USA can be blamed on mental health issues though <irony>unless you count gun/power fetishism among mental illnesses </irony>.
Edit: Saying that whoever commits an act of gun violence must be mentally ill is tantamount of saying that any criminal must be mentally ill and thus not responsible for his/her actions.

<aside>
One nice observation about this gun fetish (not by me, I think it was Bill Burr): Another common argument pro guns is that people are in it only for home security, if that were the case you would have tons of photos of people with their new door locks or magazine-covers with girls in bikinis in front of security doors.
</aside>

I applaud your stand on public (mental-) health policies though.

Now to your main question:
Have I ever encountered interpersonal violence against me or others?
Yes, but not on a level that bringing lethal force to the situation ever seemed warranted. Thankfully. One obvious reason for that is that I live in a country where I don't need to expect everyone else to carry a gun.
Would it be possible that I would think otherwise, if it would have been the case? Yes.
Would I be correct in thinking that way? No.

To explain: I am not a friend of passive aggressive "stand you ground" thinking. The sane response chain is: 1. Try not to let yourself be provoked, 2. try to de-escalate, 3. try to evade/flee, 4. try to defend yourself.....And of course: CALL THE COPS!

Does that harm my male ego? Yes.
Does that matter enough to me for me to risk killing another human being? No.

Oh the irony...

I'm a Christian, and I hate those people that only offers "thoughts & prayers" to steal the spotlight as much as the next guy. The arguments I get into with my fellow Christians about the danger of passivity is intense, you just don't know about it.

Comedy by mocking people is one thing, as the targets so often do deserve scorns. But not offering any solutions or demonstrably doing anything more than mocking others, thus not making the world better is also "less than nothing."

*sigh....passive aggressiveness from someone who keeps changing the argument is tiresome, ask your friends.

Your original statement ....""American wealth inequality is staggering. "
???? Stated as if that is a bad thing......."

Clearly indicating staggering wealth inequality isn't a bad thing.

Now..."I totally agree that EXCESSIVE wealth inequality is a bad thing",
so unless you misspoke, you must be parsing the difference between staggering (acceptable) and excessive (unacceptable)....but staggering >= excessive.

Wealth/income inequality are tied....and now who's being pedantic?

Well, I'm glad you aren't running the economy then, sadly the one most in control thinks the same, that one person making (not earning) >10000 times what another makes for < 1/10000 the work isn't inequitable, and neither is one person owning more than 10,000,000 average fully employed countrymen thanks to an accident of birth and/or criminal/dishonest business practices.

I'm sure they will gain more overall customers because they are owned by Proctor & Gamble. As I mentioned originally, there will be plenty of women and white knights who jump at the chance to support a company who decided to tag along onto the #metoo movement.

To me, that is part of the reason why I dislike this commercial so much. Not just because of it's huge and sweeping generalizations (practically every scene has one), but because their ad department had to know that an edgy commercial would do the same thing for them as it did for Nike. Does anyone think that the majority of actual corporate level people at Gillette/P&G give two fucks about #metoo? I know I don't.

It's just an ad targeted at a huge group of people that are easy to take potshots at currently. I find it little different than attack ads run by fucktards that want to condemn all Muslims for the act of terrorists or fundamentalist jihadists. The most screwed up thing about that analogy is that, realistically, there are largish groups of Islamic people that actually will cheer and throw celebrations when there is a terrorist attack. Yet you would be hard put to find large swaths of men out in the streets cheering on the effects of so called Toxic Masculinity.

Yes, we as men need to speak out. We need to support the evolution of mankind away from barbarism. But we don't need to succumb to propaganda that tries to purport that a man seeing a pretty lady walk past shouldn't attempt to say hi or introduce himself to her because that is bad. This ad, with one of the sweeping generalizations I mentioned earlier, would have you think that it is HORRIBLE for a man to do that and that a 'responsible' man would body check that guy. Because men should never try to meet women, only remain passive and allow the woman to come to them. I say fuck that, it is wrong to catcall women, but there is nothing wrong with going up and saying hi. This ad (and some other internet videos) would have you think it's the equivalent of throwing the lady down in the middle of a crowded walkway and having your way with her.

The ad could have been better, there were moments like the Terry Crews scene that I agree with, but they took the easy way out and just slammed men in general.

Sorry, I'm definitely only referring to the coal-rolling shitstains that have nothing better to do than passive-aggressively bully other people.

If you don't like electric vehicles, don't buy one.

Don't see anyone blocking diesel pumps.

Ps. I don't own or want an EV, and my Mustang definitely gets worse mileage than any diesel, by design. If someone looks down their nose at me, I'm not going to do shit to innocent bystanders just because I'm a whiny little bitch like the ICEing dicks.

A journalist's job isn't just to sit there and passively report what Trump says to you - that would be no different than any official party propaganda. Move to North Korea if that's what you want from your reporters. The media IS the conscience of any democracy, and it is their job to hold Trump accountable for his brazen lies.

That is why the first thing any fascist, communist, and/or dictatorship does to consolidate power is to attack the media and end free press. Trump is doing the same, lying to gullible people like you to discredit any news source that doesn't work in his favor. His lies seems to have worked on you because somehow you think CNN is the "trashiest", when there are things like Fox, Sinclair, and Breitbart, which are no longer news but have moved fully into the realm of blatant propaganda.

And it's laughable that Trump supporters are now crying for respect, when they showed no such thing to Obama. Just your every day Republican hypocrisy.

Also, I'm curious as to what "good" Trump has done. Sure if you're a racist bigot and you like the idea of separating Mexican children from their parents, Trump is your man. Other than that I'm curious what else you believe he's done for America.

"hehehe, she's been waiting for like half an hour here" <== passive aggressive criticism.

Wow. Kinda surprised that you posted this @C-note.

This video completely ignores all the systemic issues that create poverty. Most people don’t have passive incomes because passive incomes come from investments.

Basically this is typical, right wing, pull yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit.

The Cadillac system, offered between 2000 and 2004, used a passive infrared camera for night vision, which was displayed on the windscreen using a heads up display. Actually a whole list of expensive cars have had this option available since Cadillac and Raytheon introduced it.

I don't think it would necessarily work well in heavy fog, which is what this new research is targeting.

There's little question that she put the trampoline on the fenceline to provoke Billy to create drama for more videos, knowing she would react and they could film it.
If I were Billy, I would set up a permanent mannequin orgy in my yard so mom would want to block her kid's view of my yard...but that's just me. Dad taught me that to manage people effectively, you need to get them to want to do what you want them to. Granted, he meant by making them want to please you, but sometimes you just have to get it how you can. ;-)

Dogs that bark outside at 6am deserve calls to animal control every time it happens. The woman recording is also a provocative bitch to say 'barking is what dogs do at 6am, we won't stop it.' Billy could sue her for that in many jurisdictions, but knowing Billy she'll likely harm the dog instead. She is not the nice, reasonable person she presents herself as in her videos, she's a passive aggressive provocateur....but Billy's a total nutjob.
Intentionally provoking nutjobs isn't smart, even if it's how you make money. Good thing for them both this is almost certainly fake/comedy.