give us a chance. ffs.
December 16, 2012
men are so violent that they will literally use anything as a weapon against women and children. give women and children a chance to survive the injuries inflicted on us by men.
ban guns. now.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
scum-o-rama! 
Reblogged this on Name The Problem.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repeal-second-amendment/hZGKphRS
another author refusing to name the agent…..while claiming to be the only one brave enough to name the agent:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/opinion/martin-gun-control/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
yes all those mentally ill women with guns, killing every damn body….BTW at least one psychiatrist at one point was willing to admit that these doods usually arent mentally ill at all:
the number one “risk factor” for being a violent predator and mass murderer is that the person in question is male. full stop.
One thing that occurred to me in hearing the coverage. Remember 9/11, when all we heard about was men’s courage, how men brought down the plane in Pennsylvania, and how crucial men are to “our” security? Here we have examples of six extraordinarily brave women, and not once have I heard this described as female heroism.
hi silverside
i have heard the word used and interestingly ive seen this phrase more than once:
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/ct-school-shooting/2012/12/16/heroes-sandy-hook#ixzz2FHt2xaDI
cant be described as anything but heroic. weird huh? theres something thought-terminating or obfuscating about it — like they tried really hard not to have to use the word “heroic” but language failed them? or they qualified on a technicality or something and are simultaneously the objects of scorn because of it? what say you? i have literally seen this at least 3 times, and it might be that the news sources all rip each other off. but thats interesting too isnt it? one thought-terminating trope is all it takes to inform or comprise the global coverage of the event, including the tone and framing of the issues. the propaganda effect is complete.
ok i think i figured it out. “cant be described” is meant to be read subliminally, leaving the impression that no word in the english language applies — no word, including heroic. and the “anything but heroic” is meant to be taken literally. these women were NOT heroic. again its subliminal, and the effect is that its a reversal — it means the exact opposite of what it says. yes/no?
“cant be described as anything but heroic.” Why would you even TRY as describing it as anything than what it was, UNLESS the unconscious strain of trying to describe a womans actions as heroic is too much…………..
Or is it the usual, a woman has to be twice as good as a man for the same word to count.
Just think how differently it reads if you just say ‘were heroic’ instead, rather than this namby-pamby word salad.
Also, I might add, how different does “her actions were heroic” (i.e. the heroism belongs to these somehow disembodied actions not her at all) read compared to the plain and straightforward “she was a hero”.
So, now we have TWO levels of removal/reversal, any word games allowed to get away from the straightforward — a man was a murderer, and women were heroes.
yes “were heroic” would be the direct/correct way to say it. “cant be described as anything but heroic” reads exactly like “cant be described as heroic” or “cant be heroic.” its really fascinating to see this reversal in action. i might write about it. and YES to “namby pamby word salad.” thats exactly what it is!
There are also statistics being put forward about how many killers are men. These statistics vary but do show the vast majority being men. The last such article I read was 92%, but even these statistics don’t go far enough. Because when they cite the 8% (figures vary) of killers that are women they fail to note one thing: The vast majority of these murders are in response to male violence, particularly domestic violence. They should not be included as murders by women.