If you can't handle falcon at his worst, you don't deserve him at his best.

Yeah we were talking in the other thread about how a lot of straight-up Nazis like Milo and Ann Coulter like to pass off their hardcore fascism as just trolling for the luls. Well, falcon is almost a perfect specimen of that, and he's been grown right here in our own little petri dish.

I think Bobman's response to you was very good and I agree with all of it. As to this question, I don't think there's a simple and well-established answer, and it seems reasonably likely that there are biological factors that explain at least some of the differences in violence between men and women. But, there's also thousands and thousands of years of cultural development which have channeled whatever those physiological differences are into well-worn tracks, so to speak. Since it's clear that women can, in fact, be violent, I would suggest that the cultural factors are the best answer to your question. It is nearly a cultural universal that men are enculturated to view violence as a normal and even valuable means of resolving problems, where women are not. It is possible that in the modern era the physiological differences are less relevant to this, i.e. less relevant to warfare, but the cultural differences are still incredibly potent.

One of my favorite anthropologists, Marvin Harris, has an interesting take on this in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, starting at page 83 (The Savage Male).

Whenever 2/235 descends into posting > 1 line of content that isn't a joke he lets his Deplorable Freak Flag fly but his one-liners are pretty funny sometimes so he's just basically a high-rent Coulter.

That red pill got DVaut SHOOK here imo. Some 2/325 facts straight from the source: I am not pee shy and don't really care if I poop in the same room as a trans person and the reason I call Chelsea Bradass is because I think she's a ****ty human being and I dislike her felonious acts. It ain't transphobia, homeslice; it's personal. And this isn't concern trolling. It's me needling you for not standing up for the things you claim to believe in because the group of right wing, illiterate, gun loving fundamentalist hillbillies we are talking about happen to be brown and you are afraid of being called a racist.

Also, I am sexier than Coulter.

Uh huh. It's "personal" between you and Chelsea so you just happened to repeat an insulting nickname over and over that is bigoted and homophobic, by accident, because of your deep respect for gays and transsexual. Story checks out, totally credible story you're toting around there.

I'm taller than Peter Dinklage but I don't brag about it.

Pretty much. But notice how many people buy into his shtick. People like Coulter and Milo and Richard Spencer use this strategy because it WORKS--especially on people who aren't paying that deep of attention, which is most of the public.

It's neither bigoted nor homophobic; it's the nom de plume she chose to use when she incriminated herself. And it's funny.

This has been touched on, but is super obnoxious how much effort is put into the question of "is Islam the issue?!?!" when the answer does not result in any deviation from the neoconservative policy prescriptions of the past 20 years.

If one of the foundational problems in this sort of pseudo-political violence is disaffected male youth, it's not contradictory to think that the problem may manifest itself differently in parts of the world where the cultural lens for viewing and handling your sense of disaffection is different.

In Japan you have a culture where a lot of value is placed on internalizing your stressors, and the result is these insular and hermitic youth who have disengaged from society. In the Middle East there is a culture colored by social, political, and religious grievances, and the result is much more likely to be a violent, outward-facing manifestation.

The question as to how much Islam in and of itself plays into this milieu is posed as a hot subject of debate, but even among the more aggressive proponents of the idea that Islam should be viewed as being a very significant or even determinative factor, the debate itself, as constructed, is irrelevant. That's because despite the fact that a huge percentage of the right state that (A) Islam is the issue and (B) admitting as much is very important, none of their actual policy prescriptions are colored by that perspective. There's no real substantive discussion about what it means to be fighting a religious rather than a political ideology -- the whole point is to push the idea that this is an intractable difference between two civilizations and therefore War Is The Answer.

Like, as I think DVaut has mentioned, you can just grant that Islam is the problem and ask what that actually means for our foreign policy. It is a 100% lock that the right wing response is an endorsement for the same **** they've been peddling for decades: more war.

I don't think anyone has ever read a 2/235 post that isn't a jokey troll thing and been like "oh this guy, fountain of wisdom" and we all recognize him as the slightly off model standard fare right-winger clowns that are a dime-a-dozen here. He's carved out a niche but I don't think anyone really buy into the schtick other than for the laffs. Some of his posts are funny and he deserves credit but I don't think anyone actually has ever gotten value out of a 2/235 politics post beyond the yucks.

In America, angry disaffected young males often join the military or police. That way they can take out their violent aggression on minorities legally, and they even get paid and get to go to school and everything for doing it. Why would they commit illegal terrorism? Legal terrorism is so much more easy and profitable and comfortable.

Most of them are cowardly ****ing idiots and they will take great, great pains to not say this but hope they'll work everyone up into a lather and say it for them.

I have tried to stop asking in a Socratic fashion "so assume Islam is the problem, now what?" because tons of times people mistakenly thought I was acknowledging their dip**** views about Islam or whatever, but yes, we absolutely should ask what these people think they are really advocating for. The honest ones will salivate about war; the dishonest morons will start gibbering about discourse and truth and turn into these mealy-mouthed purveyors of the worst sort of post-modern navel gazing, the kind of stuff that 5 minutes before they thought they were on the front-lines of combating.

The "what's the problem" question: we must yell ISLAM with full-throated intensity
The "uh, OK, assuming that, now what" question: uhh hummunah hummumnah hummanah we must deep study this truth and ruminate on the implications and consider how these fundamental truths impact our shared civil discourse something something, you tell me? Is it WAR? I mean I could go for WAR and bombing campaigns, that might be exciting, is that what you want too. Is it?!? It's WAR? Oh no, lol j/k not war not really. I mean maybe a little war, just some war we could start with war and see what happens.

Right, that's why it's all proffered as a sort of "MAKES YOU THINK" issue that is really about liberals being too PC to make negative generalizations about a billion and a half people. But somewhere beyond that is just "yeah we should bomb 'em."

It used to be often said in the UK by people who'd done 2 years National Service that scrapping it in 1960 was a big mistake because it gave wayward and lost young men a sense of discipline and camaraderie.

I have to admit I'd have hated the idea of doing it myself.

I agree and on the domestic front there's a whole host of other ideas on the that they have, but since the last time we sh*t on minorities and it didn't turn out so well (the Jews, blacks, etc) the ideas aren't immediately put out there. It's a kind of stepping up to the cliff kind of rhetoric, where it starts out with "lol libs, so naive", "Islam is the problem" with the attempt to get everyone on the same page of hard nosed realism that a religion is the problem. The comes the "well is it so bad that we reject mosques in the local communities?", "Isn't it possible that all Muslims are commanded to lie?","What's wrong with banning Muslims?" etc on and on.

I think Suzzer is right that once you start asking people to nail down the specifics they disappear but I think that's only because they don't want to say what's on their minds and appear full ****** right off the bat, not because they're at a loss for solutions to the problem.

Cos the rest of the world doesn't have guns like America

Pretty sure there would be overwhelming fear and horror if Euro countries introduced America's gun policies

America is unique compared to rest of western world. They have loads of crazy **** they need to address before Islam

UK has had about 15 knife murders in recent months , it's big news, probably a calm fortnight In some random St Louis city

There would be fear/horror for most people, but I think I read somewhere that Farage wanted a relaxation of UK gun laws.

Yea I think he did . Not sure what it was but it won't have been assault rifles for everyone

RE: your edit -- not just talking about foreign policy. It's just as applicable to domestic policy.

But my point is that these are just different hypotheses being offered up to reach the same conclusion that neoconservatives have been presenting re: the Middle East for decades. There's no actual coherent logical framework through which "admitting Islam is the problem" leads to "war forever!" or "ban them all!." It's just a rhetorical device used to reinforce otherness and frame a war of civilizations.

Demonize and dehumanize the enemy. Always an important part of winning any war. "Hearts and minds" and all that. Nothing more dehumanizing than just saying "they worship an evil religion, no way to unring that bell." Of course the natural conclusion from this, the only natural conclusion, is that we just have to kill all of them.

Knowing that this is hard and costly consensus to build, they'll often 'reasonably' offer to middle it and simply forcibly keep them penned up somewhere or inhibit their mobility. Ghettoization is a thing. Consider that one of the few actual policy solutions proposed ITT was this idea that if your politicians refuse Muslims entry, don't you dare call them racist:

Alas, though, only a partial solution. Not the final one.

Step 1: Muslim ban
Step 2: Muslim registry

http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/05/...e-police-state

Interesting article. Effectively admitting that of course we can tighten our security processes (granted its lefty bollocks effectively asserting that there's no middle ground between holding firmly onto our ankles and waiting for the next attack, and slaughtering innocent Muslims on sight with armed police), but nonetheless it admits what I've been saying; this idea with we literally. can't. do. anything. simply isn't true.

We just choose not to because it feels a bit mean.