Imagine wasting my time quoting Virginia Woolf at someone who is, to all appearances, functionally illiterate.

It's a shame, because it's an interesting topic. But here I stand with two successive interlocutors fleeing the field in a hysterical panic merely at having been contradicted.

Dear me, if they're going to slay the beast of male tyranny together then they'll have to toughen up a bit first.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

While I would LIKE to think that's the case, I do believe that, if it was the law that one has to produce ID in that state/city/county and he refused, he would have at the least been handed a small fine by the judge, because his guilt would be obvious and on camera. EDIT: That's actually how I want judges to behave, leeway on sentencing, but if the law was obviously unequivocally broken, conviction.

I think it's rare that a judge completely throws out a good case just because it's silly, unfortunately. That would put him/her at odds with the police big time. How would the police know if any stop they make will be considered 'frivolous' or 'silly' by whichever judge they happen to get?

According to all I can find on Google, there's no stop and ID law in Virginia, where this happened. They tried to create one in Richmond, Va, but it was thrown out because they had not made a law requiring all people to HAVE ID, so the law was useless and completely unenforceable.
Also, what I can find said that in states where there IS a 'stop and ID' law, the officer must still have a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime to enact it. (In this case, the empty holster gives reasonable suspicion he has a concealed weapon, which would be another legitimate reason to ask for ID in many states, or at least the concealed weapon permit which would serve the same purpose...but not in Virginia)

Please don't keep switching back to saying that what the cops did was wrong and making it seem like that's what we're in disagreement about. I'm fully in agreement with you that what they did was wrong and illegal in Virginia, and would be in a little more than half the country. In all the 24 states with stop and identify requirements, their actions would have been legal, but not in VA. I'm not arguing that what they did was correct, professional, or legal - I've never said that. This is why I asked you to consider what this guy would be like if he hadn't been arrested, to take their behavior out of the equation for just a sec.

(to be fair, if we take the extreme opposite scenario into consideration - if somebody had driven a truck full of explosives into the FBI building the day after, and the media finds out that a lone white man with a gun holster and a camera, who's on the terrorist watch list*, had been standing in full sight and filming the federal reserve and the FBI all day before, the cops would most likely get pilloried for not detaining him)

The only place thing that we disagree is on his personality, which I aver leans towards the 'tool' end of the spectrum. He can be right and a tool. He went out of his way to provoke a reaction, in what he and his peers call a "first amendment audit," and tried to make cops nervous to see if he could catch them overreacting. That kind of behavior is what drives the implementation of harsher anti-citizen legislation.

*I doubt he's actually a terrorist; he's just on the watch list.

So it would seem that the concept of red-light cameras is debated by special interest groups on both sides, with strong lobbying from red-light camera vendors. The wikipedia summary explains the controversy thus: "Authorities cite public safety as the primary reason that the cameras are installed, while opponents contend their use is more for financial gain. There have been concerns that red light cameras scare drivers (who want to avoid a ticket) into more sudden stops, which may increase the risk of a rear-end collisions."

The same Wikipedia article summarizes the research thus: "A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used." While the report states that evidence is not conclusive (partly due to flaws in the studies), the majority of studies show a reduction in angle crashes, a smaller increase in rear-end crashes, with some evidence of a “spillover” effect of reduced red light running to other intersections within a jurisdiction. These findings are similar to a 2005 meta analysis, which compared the results of 10 controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis stated that the studies showed a reduction in crashes (up to almost 30%) in which there were injuries, however, evidence was less conclusive for a reduction in total collisions. Studies of red light cameras worldwide show a reduction of crashes involving injury by about 25% to 30%, taking into account increases in rear-end crashes, according to testimony from a meeting of the Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee in 2003. These findings are supported by a review of more than 45 international studies carried out in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce red light violation rates, crashes resulting from red light running, and usually reduce right-angle collisions."

There are enough interesting sources there that you can still find confirmation for your particular bias, whatever it is, if you so choose.

I want to hear that too...

Some possibly non-causal observations to the contrary from a biased party: "Total red-light running crash fatalities decreased 22% from 2007 to 2011, as the number of communities with red-light safety cameras increased 135%.... Within a few months after red-light cameras stopped operating in Virginia Beach, red-light running rates tripled at intersections where cameras were shut down...

A 2012 study by the Texas Transportation Institute found right-angle red-light running crashes decreased by 24% at intersections with red-light safety cameras.

A 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found red-light safety cameras lowered red-light running fatalities by 24% and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 17% in a study of 14 large U.S. cities."

(all from http://www.atsol.com/fact-sheets/ )

But maybe there are other other studies, with a more catchy, 'freaky' approach?

Your video, Massive Train Explosion in West Virginia after Derailment -, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Its NASA Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. Almost all launch facilities weather they be in the US, Russia, China, India, French Guiana have service buildings close to the launch site. You are probably used to watching shuttle launches at the massive facility in Florida where the launch structure dwarfed any such service buildings.

For the launch all personnel are evacuated to a safe distance. If the range officer is on the ball a self destruct would be sent to the vehicle before it strayed out of its saftey zone.

Tragically expensive, but no one was hurt or killed (that I know of).
It just happened last night, I think about 6:30 pm Virginia time (from the time stamp on the video).

Do you mean MY YT channel? I don't have one. That means you now certainly have ebolaids! (Hivbola?)

In West Virginia where I was raised, there was a boulder on a mountain pass road for over 10 years. It was easier/cheaper just to erect a yield sign than to remove the bolder. So depends on the boulder and the road importance I imagine.

@VoodooV
totally agree that there needs to be a strong message and people need to get organized.

as for my obama comment.i read an article when it went down that had the memo from the sec. of state.
i dont have it on hand so believe what you wish,its fairly irrelevant now but if you recall..all occupy movements were shut down within 48hrs.
that takes co-ordination.

as for the state being violent.
it is.
thats what it does.
just look up the labor movement.look up the west virginia mining strikes.just for ONE example to see the violence the state will perpetrate in the name of their masters.even back then corporations wielded immense power and influence.
anything good,decent and moral that this country has gained was NEVER a gift from the government but rather through opposition and bloodshed.

i do not accept the "lesser of two evils' argument.we can do better..period.

i do not accept that because the government consists of people that it automatically translates to benevolence.

the soldier who supervised the gas chamber in auschwitz may have been a great husband and father but he still presided over the execution of thousands.

people give authority and power to those who do not deserve it and sometimes that translates to a spiritual illness.

yes,you are correct.we have a voluntary military but have you ever questioned why?
why are these young people joining?
while there a myriad of reasons the main one?
they are poor and un-educated.thats the biggest reason.
and right now our military is experiencing the largest suicide rate ever..3 times the normal rate.

wonder why? might have something to do with a compromised moral compass?

maybe the american public SHOULD be made aware of what is being wrought in our name.
maybe that revolution would start a lot sooner.

i do not know whats going to happen.
but i am glad of your optimism.
i hope you are right my friend.
i hope you are right.

In http://wtkr.com/2013/08/01/video-shows-virginia-state-police-car-hitting-skateboarder/ you can see a less-edited version of the video. The cop did not casually drive off after intentionally running the guy over. Rather he was making an illegal u-turn and wasn't paying attention. He got out to see if the skater was injured.

So not police brutality. At worst police reckless endangerment. More generously a stupid mistake.

(and I am certainly not someone who will excuse police aggression)

http://wtvr.com/2013/07/31/video-va-state-trooper-hits-skateboarder/

FTFA: “I do not have any other details to provide to you,” said Sergeant Molnar. ”This is a personnel matter and state police does not have further comment on this matter.”

Bullshit. This is a criminal matter. Even though this video is edited it still appears the hit was intentional. Not sure about Virginia but shouldn't that be assault with a deadly weapon or aggravated assault?

Wow, you really are the poster child for the low information voter, nothing in your drivel disproves my claims.

Take a look at http://www.270towin.com/

start going back through each of the elections, you'll notice that with very few exceptions, the south is always red.

That is until say...oh...1960. Hrm, I wonder what sort of racial event happened around that time...hrmmmmmm.

From: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/

"Martin (Virginia State Sen. Stephen Martin) said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today."

Hrm, that's two Republicans now that have admitted they were wrong in regards to claims you also are making.

Do yourself a favor bob, and do some of them book learn'ns You've got a lot of catching up to do if you want to join this century.

MA is a anti-gun state so they get what they deserve for trading their freedom for police state security. You won't see police try this fascist crap in Texas or Virginia.