*************Note the line about 2/3's way through I've set off in asterisks.************************
No One Wants Crazy People To Have Guns, But Who Decides Who Is Crazy?
.
By Jack Donovan On April 20, 2013 · Add Comment .
..
It sounds like a common sense measure.
Keep guns out of the hands of people who are “unstable.”
You don’t want people who might “snap” to have access to an arsenal, right?
To anyone who opposes tighter restrictions on gun sales, especially to those deemed “mentally ill,” police state progressives will respond:
“So you want crazy people to have free access to guns?”
Well, no. Of course not. No one wants some freak who hears voices and thinks the neighbor’s dog is the Devil to be sitting at his windowsill rubbing himself as he moves a holographic reticle over the bodies of strangers taking a walk in the park.
The problem isn’t whether or not lunatics should be able to go on wild-eyed, no-questions-asked shopping sprees at the local gun shop, giddily fondling armor piercing rounds and drooling all over high capacity magazines.
The problem is: who decides who is a nut?
The answer, unfortunately, is politically progressive women.
According to a 2011 article released by the American Psychological Association, the new “experts” in psychology—people who have earned PhDs—are now over 60% women in every area of study but cognitive psychology. There are dramatically more female PhDs in developmental, family, clinical, counseling and “social and personality” fields.
What’s more, these women and many of their male counterparts overwhelmingly belong to the same political demographic that wants to ban or reduce access to firearms for everyone. As many as 80% of psychology professors identify as Democrats or politically “liberal.” In a New York Times article, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argued that social psychologists have become a “tribal-moral community.”
“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism.”
Listen to Haidt’s speech on “Post-Partisan Psychology” here.
Chances are that these women and their progressive male colleagues — who will be consulted as “experts” by lawyers, judges, policy-makers, doctors, law enforcement officers and the media to determine who is mentally “healthy” and who is mentally “unfit” to own a weapon –will live in a gun-free household. One survey said that 40% of male Democrats and 24% of female Democrats are said to live in a household with a gun. When broken down according to who actually owns the guns in any given household, a more recent survey showed that only 12% of American women own guns, and only 32% of all self-identified Democrats own guns.
There is every reason to assume that an industry dominated by female Democrats, and which has demonstrated a willingness to discriminate against socially and politically conservative peers in academia, will also demonstrate bias against patients and subjects who hold views and values that run contrary to the interests of their own “tribal-moral community.”
So many ideological positions have already been tagged as “phobias.” Homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia. It’s easy to pathologize someone else’s concerns or dismiss them as “irrational,” especially if you don’t share the same concerns. Especially if what they think is bad is something you think is good. Big-government advocates believe that their political opponents have an irrational fear of government regulation and aggression. People who don’t go with the flow are routinely dismissed as kooks and conspiracy theorists. Those on the right in America are often referred to as “wing-nuts.”
How hard would it be for a female psychologist to perceive “preppers,” for instance, to be suffering from some “paranoid delusion?”
****************************************************************************************************************************************
It would seem perfectly rational for a well-to-do female Democrat who has never owned, lived with, or even fired a gun to regard virtually all men who invest a lot of time and money in firearms as suffering from some sort of inadequacy or paranoia.
********************************************************************************************************************************
Pre-PC masculinity (meaning: masculinity) itself is characterized by feminist psychologists and sociologists as being a “tough guise” adopted to deal with irrational fears.
The mental health industry provides a convenient backdoor workaround for police state progressives who want to disarm the (predominantly white) men who oppose their ideological agenda.
It sounds reasonable to say that the mentally ill shouldn’t have access to guns, but taking greater measures to prevent the mentally ill from having guns increases the ability of progressive women to disarm men who don’t share their views or tell them what they want to hear. “Common sense” measures like this create more ways for America’s corrupt police state to call on these women to silence, discredit, and disarm perceived enemies of the police state.
In fact, referring to the American government as a “corrupt police state” could be enough for any Obama-worshiping progressive woman to characterize me as a “dangerous, paranoid extremist.”
What’s to stop them from characterizing YOU as a “dangerous, paranoid extremist?”
After writing this, I decided to send $20 to Gun Owners of America, “The Only No-Compromise Gun Lobby in Washington.”
I’m not much for political action, because I understand that elites manage our choices, but lobby groups fuck with their official narrative in helpful way.
No One Wants Crazy People To Have Guns, But Who Decides Who Is Crazy?
.
By Jack Donovan On April 20, 2013 · Add Comment .
..
It sounds like a common sense measure.
Keep guns out of the hands of people who are “unstable.”
You don’t want people who might “snap” to have access to an arsenal, right?
To anyone who opposes tighter restrictions on gun sales, especially to those deemed “mentally ill,” police state progressives will respond:
“So you want crazy people to have free access to guns?”
Well, no. Of course not. No one wants some freak who hears voices and thinks the neighbor’s dog is the Devil to be sitting at his windowsill rubbing himself as he moves a holographic reticle over the bodies of strangers taking a walk in the park.
The problem isn’t whether or not lunatics should be able to go on wild-eyed, no-questions-asked shopping sprees at the local gun shop, giddily fondling armor piercing rounds and drooling all over high capacity magazines.
The problem is: who decides who is a nut?
The answer, unfortunately, is politically progressive women.
According to a 2011 article released by the American Psychological Association, the new “experts” in psychology—people who have earned PhDs—are now over 60% women in every area of study but cognitive psychology. There are dramatically more female PhDs in developmental, family, clinical, counseling and “social and personality” fields.
What’s more, these women and many of their male counterparts overwhelmingly belong to the same political demographic that wants to ban or reduce access to firearms for everyone. As many as 80% of psychology professors identify as Democrats or politically “liberal.” In a New York Times article, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argued that social psychologists have become a “tribal-moral community.”
“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.” It’s easy for social scientists to observe this process in other communities, like the fundamentalist Christians who embrace “intelligent design” while rejecting Darwinism.”
Listen to Haidt’s speech on “Post-Partisan Psychology” here.
Chances are that these women and their progressive male colleagues — who will be consulted as “experts” by lawyers, judges, policy-makers, doctors, law enforcement officers and the media to determine who is mentally “healthy” and who is mentally “unfit” to own a weapon –will live in a gun-free household. One survey said that 40% of male Democrats and 24% of female Democrats are said to live in a household with a gun. When broken down according to who actually owns the guns in any given household, a more recent survey showed that only 12% of American women own guns, and only 32% of all self-identified Democrats own guns.
There is every reason to assume that an industry dominated by female Democrats, and which has demonstrated a willingness to discriminate against socially and politically conservative peers in academia, will also demonstrate bias against patients and subjects who hold views and values that run contrary to the interests of their own “tribal-moral community.”
So many ideological positions have already been tagged as “phobias.” Homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia. It’s easy to pathologize someone else’s concerns or dismiss them as “irrational,” especially if you don’t share the same concerns. Especially if what they think is bad is something you think is good. Big-government advocates believe that their political opponents have an irrational fear of government regulation and aggression. People who don’t go with the flow are routinely dismissed as kooks and conspiracy theorists. Those on the right in America are often referred to as “wing-nuts.”
How hard would it be for a female psychologist to perceive “preppers,” for instance, to be suffering from some “paranoid delusion?”
****************************************************************************************************************************************
It would seem perfectly rational for a well-to-do female Democrat who has never owned, lived with, or even fired a gun to regard virtually all men who invest a lot of time and money in firearms as suffering from some sort of inadequacy or paranoia.
********************************************************************************************************************************
Pre-PC masculinity (meaning: masculinity) itself is characterized by feminist psychologists and sociologists as being a “tough guise” adopted to deal with irrational fears.
The mental health industry provides a convenient backdoor workaround for police state progressives who want to disarm the (predominantly white) men who oppose their ideological agenda.
It sounds reasonable to say that the mentally ill shouldn’t have access to guns, but taking greater measures to prevent the mentally ill from having guns increases the ability of progressive women to disarm men who don’t share their views or tell them what they want to hear. “Common sense” measures like this create more ways for America’s corrupt police state to call on these women to silence, discredit, and disarm perceived enemies of the police state.
In fact, referring to the American government as a “corrupt police state” could be enough for any Obama-worshiping progressive woman to characterize me as a “dangerous, paranoid extremist.”
What’s to stop them from characterizing YOU as a “dangerous, paranoid extremist?”
After writing this, I decided to send $20 to Gun Owners of America, “The Only No-Compromise Gun Lobby in Washington.”
I’m not much for political action, because I understand that elites manage our choices, but lobby groups fuck with their official narrative in helpful way.
lol
