on censorship and sensitivity
There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity. It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away. If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it. And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it. This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common. So, why do I think it’s a problem?

FICTION
An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction? Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies? To only see happy things? As escapism? That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols. It’s a means of expression. What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new. 

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely. Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others. Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing. It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you. Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile. Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped. Thought is not crime.

CENSORSHIP
Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them. But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive. 

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable. What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis. Sad songs can be beautiful. Horror stories can be fun. When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s. I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me? Why does it scare me? Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant. When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later. Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims. No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material. Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified. When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that. Can’t be helped.” Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.

SENSITIVITY
To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”. Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real. I would never belittle someone else’s pain. But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world. Not all content is made with you in mind. It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy. The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms. It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime. Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it. 

THE ANSWER
What I would love to see is a perspective shift. I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host. If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work. I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it. No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves. Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly. Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others. Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself). Understand that not all content is meant for you. Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm. That’s all I’m asking.

REMEMBER COMRADES! WE ARE TANK!
THEY TAKE OUT TREADS, WE ARTILLERY
THEY TAKE OUT MAIN GUN, WE ARE PILLBOX
THEY TAKE OUT MACHINE GUN, WE BUNKER
THEY TAKE OUT ARMOUR, WE HEROES!

The wage gap is really non-existent, the statistic that shows a wage gap doesn't take into account that women often quit working when they have a child, which skews the data of salary per capita

Feminists don’t realize they’re constantly talking about the Earnings Gap rather than the wage gap. The Earnings gap states that because women take martial leave to have a child and take more days off, they EARN less than men.

Not paid less then men.

Then Samson said, "With an ass's jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With an ass's jawbone I have killed a thousand men."

Communism
Russia: bad idea
Ukraine: bad idea
Belarus: bad idea
The Baltic states: bad idea
Kazakstan: bad idea
Uzbekistan: bad idea
Kyrgyzstan: bad idea
Poland: bad idea
Former Yugoslavian nations: bad idea
Romania: bad idea
Bulgaria: bad idea
Germany: bad idea
Czech Republic: bad idea
Vietnam: bad idea
Cambodia: bad idea
Tumblrinas: it could work

Democratic socialism/socialist wellfare;

Denmark: Good idea.
Finland: Good idea.
Norway: Good idea.
Switzerlland: Good idea.
New Zealand: Good idea.
Scandanavian countries: Good idea.
America under New Deal regulations and Eisenhower tax rates; Good idea, helped build the biggest middle class in the world, sent us to the moon, and made our education system the envy of the world.

Right wing retards under failing trickle down economical schemes, privatization, and Miltonism: BAD IDEA! WHAT WE HAVE ISN’T WORKING AND SOCIALISM SOUNDS SCURRY TO US HUR DURR I’M FUCKING RETARDED

The old gods are calling, can you hear their song? Embrace your lust and come with me to the woods...

In Crockpot.

Put in two cans of apple pie filling.

Layer spice cake filling over it.

Put in 8 oz of butter on top of the spice cake layer, don't mix.

Bake on high for 2-2.5 hours.

Take out and eat with ice cream.

Mmm.

Nope , when you factor in things like job choice , hours worked , and use the median wage , instead of the average wage , its at most a five cent gap

Reconcile with your petty Gods, for all shall perish in the coming tempest.

WHY VEGAN DIETS SUCK


There is no one right way to eat for everyone.

We are all different and what works for one person may not work for the next.

I personally advocate consumption of both animals and plants and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a reasonable way to eat.

However, I often get comments from vegans who think that people should eliminate all animal foods.

They frequently say that I'm giving out dangerous advice, that I must be corrupt and sponsored by the meat and dairy industry, or that I'm simply misinformed and need to read The China Study. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)

Really… I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians.

If you want to eat in this way for whatever reason and you are feeling good and improving your health, then great! Keep on doing what you're doing.

But I do have a serious problem when proponents of this diet are using lies and fear mongering to try and convince everyone else to eat in the same way.

I'm tired of having to constantly defend my position regarding animal foods, so I decided to summarize what I think are the key problems with vegan diets.

Here are 5 reasons why I think vegan (as in no animal foods at all) diets are a bad idea…

1. Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients.

Humans are omnivores. We function best eating both animals and plants.

There are some nutrients that can only be gotten from plants (like Vitamin C) and others that can only be gotten from animals.
Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12) that is involved in the function of every cell in the body.

It is particularly important in the formation of blood and the function of the brain.

Because B12 is critical for life and isn't found in any amount in plants (except some types of algae), it is by far the most important nutrient that vegans must be concerned with.

In fact, B12 deficiency is very common in vegans, one study showing that a whopping 92% of vegans are deficient in this critical nutrient (1).

But B12 is just the tip of the iceberg… there are other lesser known nutrients that are only found in animal foods and are critical for optimal function of the body.

Here are a few examples:

Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few. Vegans don't get any animal protein (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/), which can have negative effects on body composition (http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n3/2/v3n3-2pdf.pdf) (http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17657359)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19678968)

Creatine helps form an energy reservoir in cells. Studies show that vegetarians are deficient in creatine, which has harmful effects on muscle (http://authoritynutrition.com/5-muscle-nutrients-in-animal-foods/) and brain function (http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/) (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8207518) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600563)

Carnosine is protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-010-0749-2) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10951108)

Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18305382) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11083485)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637947)

Two other nutrients that have been demonized by vegan proponents are saturated fat and cholesterol. (http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/)

Cholesterol is a crucial molecule in the body and is part of every cell membrane. It is also used to make steroid hormones like testosterone (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/). Studies show that saturated fat intake correlates with increased testosterone levels (http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full).

Not surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians have much lower testosterone levels than meat eaters (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435181) (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/1/127.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/159772)

Bottom line: Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts.

2. There are no studies showing that they're better than other diets.

Despite what vegan proponents often claim, there are no controlled trials showing that these diets are any better than other diets.
They often claim that low-carb, high-fat diets (the opposite of vegan diets) are dangerous and that the evidence clearly shows vegan diets to be superior.

I disagree.

This has actually been studied in a high quality randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of science) (http://authoritynutrition.com/randomized-controlled-trials-in-nutrition/).

The A to Z study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo) compared the Atkins (low-carb, high-fat) diet to the Ornish (low-fat, near-vegan) diet (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916).

This study clearly shows that the Atkins diet causes greater improvements in pretty much all health markers, although not all of them were statistically significant:

The Atkins group lost more weight (http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-lose-weight-as-fast-as-possible/), 10.4 lbs, while the Ornish group lost only 5.6 lbs.

The Atkins group had greater decreases in blood pressure.

The Atkins group had greater increases in HDL (the "good") cholesterol.

The Atkins group had greater decreases in Triglycerides. They went down by 29.3 mg/dL on Atkins, only 14.9 mg/dL on Ornish.

Then the Atkins dieters were about twice as likely to make it to the end of the study, indicating that the Atkins diet was easier to follow (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diets-healthy-but-hard/)

Put simply, the Atkins diet had several important advantages (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-vs-vegan-vegetarian/) while the Ornish diet performed poorly for all health markers measured.
Now, there are some studies showing health benefits and lower mortality in vegetarians and vegans, such as the Seventh-Day Adventist Studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies) (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/5/1225.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/).

The problem with these studies is that they are so-called observational studies (http://authoritynutrition.com/modern-nutrition-policy-lies-bad-science/). These types of studies can only demonstrate correlation, not causation.

The vegetarians are probably healthier because they are more health conscious overall, eat more vegetables, are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, etc. It has nothing to do with avoiding animal foods.

In another study of 10,000 individuals, where both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians were health conscious, there was no difference in mortality between groups (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8842068).

One controlled trial showed that a vegan diet was more effective against diabetes than the official diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779).

However, a low-carb diet has also been studied (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu/) for this purpose and led to much more powerful beneficial effects (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/).

A vegan diet may be better than the typical low-fat diet (http://authoritynutrition.com/do-low-fat-diets-work/) recommended by the mainstream nutrition organizations (http://authoritynutrition.com/mainstream-nutrition-has-failed-miserably/), but pretty much any diet fits that description.

Bottom line: Despite all the propaganda, there isn't any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature.

3. Proponents of vegan diets use lies and fear mongering to promote their cause.

Some vegan proponents aren't very honest when they try to convince others of the virtues of the vegan diet.

They actively use lies and fear mongering to scare people away from fat and animal foods.

Despite all the propaganda, there really isn't any evidence (http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/) that meat, eggs (http://authoritynutrition.com/why-are-eggs-good-for-you/), or animal-derived nutrients like saturated fat and cholesterol cause harm.

People who promote vegan diets should be more honest and not use scare tactics and lies to make people feel guilty about eating animal foods, which are perfectly healthy (if unprocessed and naturally fed). (http://authoritynutrition.com/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef/),

I'd also like to briefly mention The China Study… which is the holy bible of veganism and apparently "proves" that vegan diets are the way to go.

This was an observational study performed by a scientist who was madly in love with his theories. He cherry picked the data from the study to support his conclusions and ignored the data that didn't fit.

The main findings of the China study have been thoroughly debunked.

I recommend you look at these two critiques:

-Denise Minger: The China Study – Fact or Fallacy (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/)

-Chris Masterjohn: What Dr. Campbell Won't Tell You About The China Study (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html)

Also… a new study from China came out very recently, directly contradicting the findings of the China study.

According to this study, men eating red meat had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and women eating red meat had a lower risk of cancer (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.062638.abstract).

Bottom line: Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods. They frequently cite The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked.

4. Vegan diets may work in the short term, for other reasons.

If you look at vegan message boards, you will quickly find stories of people who have seen amazing health benefits on a vegan diet.
I've got no reason to believe that these people are lying.

But it's important to keep in mind that this is anecdotal evidence, which isn't science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

You will find the same kinds of success stories for pretty much any diet.

Then you'll also find tons of people saying they got terrible results on a vegan diet.

Personally, I think that vegan diets can have health benefits for a lot of people… at least in the short term, before the nutrient deficiencies kick in (which can be partly circumvented by supplementation).

However, I don't think this has anything to do with avoiding animal foods!

Vegan diets don't just recommend that people avoid animal foods. They also recommend that people avoid added sugars (http://authoritynutrition.com/9-reasons-to-avoid-sugar/), refined carbohydrates, processed vegetable oils and trans fats.

Then they suggest that people stop smoking and start exercising. There are so many confounders here that can easily explain all the beneficial effects.

These are extremely unhealthy foods, that's something the vegans and I agree on (http://authoritynutrition.com/4-common-foods-that-kill-15-million-people-per-year/). I personally think that avoiding these foods is what is causing the apparent benefits.

I am 100% certain that a plant-based diet that includes at least a little bit of animals (the occasional whole egg or fatty fish, for example) will be much healthier in the long-term than a diet that eliminates animal foods completely.

Bottom line: Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods.

5. There is NO health reason to completely avoid animal foods.

Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years.

We evolved this way. (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-eating-healthy-so-simple/)

Our bodies are perfectly capable of digesting, absorbing and making full use of the many beneficial nutrients found in animal foods.

It is true that processed meat causes harm and that it's disgusting the way "conventionally raised" animals are treated these days.

However, animals that are fed natural diets (like grass-fed cows) and given access to the outdoors are completely different.

Even though processed meat causes harm, which is supported by many studies, the same does NOT apply to natural, unprocessed meat.

Unprocessed red meat (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/), which has been demonized in the past, really doesn't have any association with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or the risk of death (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300).

It has only a very weak link with an increased risk of cancer and this is probably caused by excessive cooking, not the meat itself (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540747) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065) (http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet).

Saturated fat has also never been proven to lead to heart disease. A study of almost 350 thousand individuals found literally no association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995).

Studies on eggs show no effect either. Multiple long-term studies have been conducted on egg consumption, which are very rich in cholesterol, and found no negative effects (http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539)(http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189529).

The thing is that animal foods… meat, fish, eggs and dairy products for those who can tolerate them, are extremely nutritious.

They are loaded with high quality protein, healthy fats(http://authoritynutrition.com/10-ways-to-add-healthy-fats-to-the-diet/), vitamins, minerals and various lesser known nutrients that have important effects on health.

There may be ethical or religious reasons not to eat animals… I get it. But there is no scientifically valid health reason to completely eliminate animal foods.

Take home message:

At the end of the day, the optimal diet (http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-eat-healthy/)for any one person depends on a lot of things.

This includes age, gender, activity levels, current metabolic health, food culture and personal preference.

Vegan diets may be appropriate for some people, not others. Different strokes for different folks.

If you want to eat a vegan diet, then make sure to be prudent about your diet. Take the necessary supplements and read some of the books by the vegan docs, I'm sure they at least know how to safely apply a vegan diet.

If you're getting results, feeling good and are managing to stick to your healthy lifestyle, then that's great. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

But don't use fear mongering and scare tactics to persuade people to join your cause and scare them away from perfectly healthy animal foods. That ain't cool.

Mini masterpost about the problems with circumcision:



Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract)

Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947)

Circumcision linked to alexithymia (http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/2772r13175400432/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3149%2fjmh.1002.184)

The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission (http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract)

There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full)

Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977)

Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)

Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits (http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm)

Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/)

Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902)

Circumcision has negligible benefit (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693)

Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731)

Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731)

Circumcision linked to psychological trauma (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/)

Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behavior (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682)

The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission (http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract)

There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full)

Religion does three things to people quite effectively: controls them, divides them, and deludes them.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/jon_stewart_exposes_the_gross_and_blatant_inequality_muslim_americans_face_every_day/?utm_source=Tumblr&utm_medium=Tumblr%20Share&utm_campaign=Tumblr



I can’t find any evidence or eyewitness accounts of this happening. Only apologetic statements offered by United Airlines, which were probably only released to protect their image. Had they tried to deny it, they would’ve been accused of racism and Islamophobia. So they took the easy option and apologised for an incident that, in all likelihood, did not occur. Even her preening account, apparently written and posted mid flight, reeks of lies.



It has the well rehearsed, detailed, faultless aura that so many fake Tumblr stories have, much like the infamous ‘whole train started applauding’ type of posts. A big evil man stares her straight in the eyes and shouts obscenities at her while insulting her faith. The man next to her gets a beer while she isn’t even afforded the chance to have a soda. The comparison between beer and soda isn’t accidental either. It makes her seem innocent and childlike and thus more sympathetic. All she wanted was a Diet Coke and was denied, while the man next to her was given alcohol without hassle.

Then to top it all off, there’s a catchy hashtag. How convenient. A memorable hashtag to end her story with. This is a clear attempt to gain sympathy and to spread her victim narrative. In the same way that the #illridewithyou hashtag was proven to be based upon a false story, I expect this #IslamophobiaISREAL hashtag is also built upon a fictional tale. I suspect that it’s nothing more than a cynical attempt to manipulate media outlets and social networks into giving her attention, just like the fake Red Lobster receipt story and various other similar hoaxes.

Also, no stewardess is dumb enough to think that a can of Coke can be used as a weapon, especially since the drinks provided on planes have already passed through security and thus would not be a danger. Anyone who works with air travel is extensively trained in passenger safety and airline workers are well aware of the risks associated with terrorism. No one rigorously trained in both airport security and customer interaction is going to accuse a paying passenger of wanting to use a can of Diet Coke as a weapon.

Furthermore, no one who is shaken, upset and in tears from being aggressively humiliated would write a heavily detailed, calm and well written account in a matter of minutes. They wouldn’t be in the right frame of mind to do so. Reading her Facebook post, it’s clear that it was not written by someone who had just experienced a large degree of public emotional humiliation.

It would appear that my suspicions are also backed up by this account of the incident in question. I can’t verify that the passenger in that link was actually on the same flight but their account certainly seems to correspond neatly with my own deductions about this woman. Apparently, Tahera Ahmad views herself as some sort of activist, which explains why she felt so compelled to concoct a pathetic sob story to push her agenda. What’s worse is that her dumb story was covered on a huge show with millions of gullible viewers. Disgusting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/

Echos of past events
nudge the tiller on
my present course
I await its reflection
in the future

Biggest problems male face today-

Selective service: If someone in the United States is born male, from the age of eighteen to twenty-six they are considered government property. If World War III broke out right now, the government can take any born male they want, including (but not limited to): trans women (http://transequality.org/issues/resources/selective-service-and-transgender-people), physically disabled men, mentally disabled men, single fathers, and only sons (https://www.sss.gov/Registration-Info/Who-Registration). Women don’t have to do it. Why? Just because (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft). They even require illegal immigrants to sign up, and say nothing about providing them with citizenship. As a man, if you don’t sign up before the age of twenty-six, you can be fined $250,000, denied a trial, get up to five years in prison, are denied student loans and federal job training, and you are technically not a citizen (https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties). It can make it harder to get a driver’s license, financial aid, and to pursue employment (http://www.finaid.org/students/selectiveservice.phtml).

Circumcision: It’s male genital mutilation, let’s be frank about it. Female genital mutilation is completely illegal in first world countries, while circumcision is still legal. It has little to no health benefits (http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore), and it’s primarily done for religious or aesthetic reasons. Basically, some Jewish doctor made up a bunch of fake health benefits back in the ‘50s so he could keep cutting off parts of a baby’s dick. It kills around 117 infants a year (http://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths) and has many adverse affects on the psyche and body (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement06.html). Eleven babies in New York City contracted herpes from a Jewish circumcision ritual (http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/). Here’s an article about the myths doctors will tell you about circumcision (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe). Circumcision is harmful, and violates a man’s right to bodily autonomy (http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm). Let's not forget that circumcisions have caused the deaths of over one hundred infants in the U.S. each year (http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html).

False rape claims: Here’s a post debunking the “it’s only two percent” claim (http://realsexism.tumblr.com/post/119173907255/feminism-lies-about-rape) . And a masterpost of sources about false rape claims (http://aaasources.tumblr.com/post/85731645661/false-rape). If a man is accused of rape, he can lose his job, custody of his kids, and even his home. Not to mention that the family of the alleged victim might go after him. MRAs wanted a law passed that the accused name was not allowed in papers until he was charged, not convicted, but charged, but some feminists fought against this, causing it to fail. Here’s an interesting article about false rape claims (http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php). Most famously, and most recently, Emma Sulkowitz lied (http://nypost.com/2015/02/08/columbia-mattress-rape-case-is-not-justice-its-shaming-without-proof/) about her supposed rape for attention (https://reason.com/blog/2015/04/24/student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl).

Actual rape: Even by conservative numbers, male rape victims in prisons far outnumber female rape victims (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/oct/24/shame-our-prisons-new-evidence/?pagination=false). About 7.7 percent of those in juvenile detention reported sexual contact with staff during the preceding year. The number of rape reports in prison is over 140,000 a year (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report.html). Over 90 percent of these cases involved female staff and teenage boys in custody (this is from the same link). The UK’s biggest male rape center had it’s funding cut to zero, despite a 120% increase in reports (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uks-biggest-male-rape-charity-survivors-uk-has-state-funding-slashed-to-zero-despite-120-rise-in-men-reporting-sexual-violence-and-seeking-help-10274441.html). Here’s a petition to get funding for the center. Male sexual assault victims aren’t even accounted for by the CDC (http://siryouarebeingmocked.tumblr.com/post/41787262227/plhanson-siryouarebeingmocked-cdc-national).

Domestic violence: Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of “being male” under primary aggressor policies. Some feminists fought against this (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf) by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists are doing it as well (http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg). The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued. Women are actually more likely to be perpetrators(http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176%2Fpn.42.15.0031a), and it’s harder for men to be taken seriously (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-22/domestic-violence-women-abusers-on-the-rise/1327964). Male victims of domestic abuse have a 47% chance to be threatened by police, 35% of being completely ignored, and a 21% chance of being arrested themselves (http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/carolettaijcjs2010vol5iss1.pdf). Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977). Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line “dismissed or made fun of them.” (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977)

Parental rights: Currently, in the United States, a man has two options if he gets a woman pregnant: pay child support and just assume it goes to supporting that child or go to prison. In France, a male asking for a paternity test is against the law (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/france-upholds-the-ban-on-paternity-tests/). So a woman can name a man as the father and even if he isn’t, he still has to pay child support. The male birth control pill that goes around Tumblr every few months was not declined because men couldn’t handle the effects, instead some feminists fought against it because it would give a man too much power in the situation (http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/the-real-reasons-we-do-not-have-a-male-birth-control-pill/).

This is a link to my favorite article by Paul Elam, who has written some great articles about men’s problems (http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/abc2020-the-psychology-of-hate-abc2020/).

TL;DR, men have problems, too. This is not meant to take away from female problems, but to bring attention to the issues men face. Empathy and awareness are not a finite resources to be distributed with care; silencing entire demographics just creates resentment and a rift where one need not.

heh

Does the black moon howl?