Monday morning links

Porn addiction just destroyed my niece's marriage and left her children fatherless. Her husband kept pressuring her for more and more extreme, objectifying, and degrading behavior until she couldn't take it anymore.

Let's not allow this porn-positive narrative to prevail. Porn is not good for society; it belongs in the shadows for a reason.

#1 ahem on 2016-07-11 08:06 (Reply)

That's not evidence that the porn caused it. More likely, he would have done this anyway, as people did before porn was easily available. Such a person would likely not be much bothered by acquiring porn as well, but that is co-occurring.

#1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-07-11 08:24 (Reply)

Different sexual appetites causes many marriages to break up. Without exception the spouse with the lower appetite accuses the other spouse of being a degenerate. Most people enjoy porn, women prefer their version of porn and men prefer theirs. I like to read Westerns (my porn) and I buy used paperbacks. But the racks are full (90% or so) of romance novels (women's porn). Any studies into how many marriages romance novels break up?

#1.2 SweetPea on 2016-07-11 09:56 (Reply)

But you musn't think that way, ahem. This is the era of the rightist lifestyle and nothing says prude more than principles. Rather, drink, eat and screw for pleasure, and don't let them see you not having a blast. It's the new for-tomorrow-we-die. Well, on each seventh tomorrow we have a nice purging lectionary.

The last thing the right needs - the very last, by the look of things - is the left seeing it with a cultural stick up its ass.

Your body is a temple. Well, to you and some chicks on the beach.

#1.3 Ten on 2016-07-11 11:18 (Reply)

What church taught you that?

There is no pleasure on earth that was created by evil, otherwise known as Satan to Christians. All of the pleasures, wine, humor, food, sex, are gifts from God. Evil can only corrupt the pleasures in life; it cannot create them. This is basic theology taught in any church.

Acknowledging good and evil and rejecting the corruption of pleasures is not having a stick up your ass.

#1.3.1 Jack Walter on 2016-07-12 07:49 (Reply)

Acknowledging good and evil and rejecting the corruption of pleasures is not having a stick up your ass.

Good, evil, and pleasure in a Christian context? Seriously? Then I look forward to a delicate parsing of the differences between pleasure for fun and pleasure for fun, Jack. Feel free to use more than a few open-ended sentences on somebody's blog, too.

What church taught me that they exist? The same one that after I left it reason taught me that word salads happen when, for example, someone dangles a positively-tinged morality and a typically evident corruption in the same sentence without a dime's worth of distinction.

Until then, I think you need to go back and ask yourself the same question. Because without that and some absent definition, from any logical perspective you could be highlighting a weird splinter of Epicurean hedonism and inferring it to be the message of Christ.

#1.3.1.1 Ten on 2016-07-12 11:33 (Reply)

Actually, let me be more direct. What idiot told you - convincingly enough that you somehow took it as an official edict - that all pleasure was virtuous? Unless, of course, you could insert the wiggle word corruption and use that to make a distinction you're other wise not even attempted?

I.e., that pleasure is by definition good and corruption thereof is likewise corrupt.

The rapist isn't pleasured? (And no, rape isn't about sex, it's about power). Likewise the murderer? The abuser? The genocidist? The liar? The robber? The pathologically powerful? The narcissist and plenty of other disorders?

The hell pleasure is all fine and dandy unless it's "corrupted". Even if you could somehow snake a logical argument through all that and absolutely and specifically define all evil that involves pleasure as inherently corrupted. That's not an successful argument; it's wordplay.

#1.3.1.2 Ten on 2016-07-12 11:59 (Reply)

Are you saying the children's father was killed in some way due to the porn? the divorce?

But in reality, your niece's husband was just not mature enough to balance his sexual desires with those of his wife. Perhaps without porn he would not have discovered his desires, but then the same can be said about Marx those exposed to his ideas and their desire to impose "more and more extreme, objectifying, and degrading behavior" on others.

#1.4 JK Brown on 2016-07-11 12:47 (Reply)

After 25 years of marriage, I finally figured out why my husband was impotent and had always had impotency problems even as a young man. He had whacked himself that way while watching porn. No one should delude themselves in thinking it isn't harmful. It is horrible. It took me that long to figure out why he always wanted me to shave down there, which I never did. He was a creep.

#1.5 blondi on 2016-07-12 09:10 (Reply)

"You look like you're scared of life, you f-ing pussy."

I have three teenagers in my house. I said to one of them recently (who just turned 18) that if she wants to really be a rebel, DON'T GET A TATTOO.

The librarian's assistant that checked my books out the other day (female) had almost full sleeves, a nose ring and a piercing below her lip.
When I go shopping, now that it's hot, you see how many people have ink. Just about all of them.

Not trying to be judgemental, because I have a few mistakes from when I was in my 20's and dating a biker, but you wouldn't know that because regular clothing covers them.

#2 fjord on 2016-07-11 08:18 (Reply)

re tattoos

When did it become chic to have a tattoo, 20 years ago? Anyhow, it's been a long time. When it first became a craze I thought it would last 3 or 4 years tops, but it has endured and if anything is more popular than ever today.

I am appalled and mystified by the desire of young people to mutilate their bodies like this.

#2.1 feeblemind on 2016-07-11 10:44 (Reply)

Tattoos are one reason I find American women singularly unattractive physically. And the tattoos are usually symbolic of other unpleasant things about them.

#2.1.1 Jim on 2016-07-11 14:36 (Reply)

I really love some tattoos, but most leave me cold. Just bad graphics and art mostly. When they're great, though, they're really great, so I don't object in principle. I don't have any ink, myself.

#2.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2016-07-11 19:28 (Reply)

'The president has substantially set back race relations in the United States'-Right out of Saul Alinsky.

#3 gman on 2016-07-11 09:16 (Reply)

QUOTE:

An Ex-Cop Organized a Black Lives Matter Protest — and Protestors Got More Than They Bargained For

Get Home Safely: 10 Rules of Survival
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqJ-psD9vJw

#4 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 09:32 (Reply)

Mark this day on your calendar! Zach is right! That video was right! That's it! How not to get beat up or shot by the police. Essentially don't try to beat up or shoot the police! DUH!

#4.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-07-11 10:02 (Reply)

Good advice for EVERYBODY. I would not occur to me NOT to follow any of those rules. If more blacks had followed those rules, we wouldn't be in the racial situation we're in now.

I take issue with the tone just a little bit. Of course it's important to get home safely, but the reason EVERYONE should follow those rules is because that's how civilized people react to the police.

#4.2 mudbug on 2016-07-11 10:11 (Reply)

An attorney of the Afro-American persuasion once told me that acting respectfully towards the police was a point she emphasized to her clients. This was obviously a point her clients needed instruction on.

Back in the day, I did a lot of hitchhiking. As that could result in fines or jail, from the beginning I acted respectfully towards cops. It paid off.
Once my sister hitched on the Mass Pike in Boston where there wasn't any shoulder. Even if a car wanted to stop for her, there wouldn't have been a safe place to stop. Had she hitched on an entry ramp, it would have been a lot safer. A cop picked her up and pointed out that was a very dangerous place to stop. My sister mouthed off to the cop, and spent the night in jail.

#4.3 Gringo on 2016-07-11 11:19 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Hillary Clinton Blames Whites, Cops for Deaths of Young Black Men

Of course, that's not what she said. But if it makes you feel better...

#5 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 09:41 (Reply)

It almost doesn't matter what she says. It will most likely either be a lie or pandering.

#5.1 mudbug on 2016-07-11 10:13 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The president has substantially set back race relations in the United States... Perhaps the most damning evidence against the president and his administration is that in the last four years alone, the percentage of Americans who believe racism is on the rise has nearly doubled.

Actually, whenever there are two steps forward, it is usually followed by one step back. The Civil War and Reconstruction were followed by Jim Crow. The Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights Acts were followed by a period of instability and then retrenchment. The election of the first black U.S. president was followed by an eruption of racial tension.

QUOTE:

‘Everything is amazing right now and nobody is happy’ or ‘Americans forget how good they have it’

While the linked article is about material well-being, it also applies to civil rights. Great strides have been made, even if the dance has been made by the 3-step. Of course, the reason progress has been made is because people aren't satisfied with "how good they have it" compared to their ancestors.

#6 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 10:34 (Reply)

"The election of the first black U.S. president was followed by an eruption of racial tension. "

By blacks and Democrats hoping to use this as an opportunity to get more free stuff.

"The Civil War and Reconstruction were followed by Jim Crow"

Instituted by the Democrats.

In all fairness after the civil war Southerners were punished by the federal government and even state government. A lot of innocent people were abused economically and physically for no other reason than that they were white Southerners. This continued for years and fomented a divide that the Democrat politicians exploited to gain power over the entire South. I see a similarity between what the Democrats did then to the Southern whites to divide them and radicalize them and what they are doing today to American blacks entirely for the purpose of gaining political power. As far as I can tell it is going to work and the MSM is complicit in this terrible shameless power grab. Somewhere from down below Saul Alinsky is smilling up at the left.

#6.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-07-11 12:02 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: By blacks and Democrats hoping to use this as an opportunity to get more free stuff.

That's hardly the only reaction. Many on the left were disappointed that change didn't come as fast as they hoped, while some on the right retreated into notions of an imagined paradise of old time America. But they're not racist. They just want to make America Great Again, like it was before the Kenyan usurper came to power.

GoneWithTheWind: Instituted by the Democrats.

Sure. Whites, who felt disenfranchised by Reconstruction, and saw blacks being given "special treatment", reacted violently once the Union pulled out their troops. While a step above slavery, the close nexus of the Democratic Party and Jim Crow would continue for generations.

GoneWithTheWind: A lot of innocent people were abused economically and physically for no other reason than that they were white Southerners.

Economic dislocation was inevitable after a violent civil war, a war that left the South in ruins, and with Reconstruction, which gave power to a despised black minority. The climax of 1915's "Birth of a Nation" will give you a sense of the feelings at the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXxY1QWPBtc

#6.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 12:20 (Reply)

The common theme of each of Zachriel's "steps back" is the coming to power and influence of the Democratic Party.

#6.1.2 JK Brown on 2016-07-11 12:57 (Reply)

Re: More Lies: Obama Says He Has No Idea Why Racist Anti-White Black Power Activist Killed 5 Cops in Dallas

It's interesting to note that immediately after the Dylann Roof shootings he offered:

QUOTE:

"The fact that this took place in a black church also raises questions about a dark part of our history,"

But when a black shooter told police that he wanted to kill white police officers, Obama just can't speculate why he would do such a thing.

But then, what do you expect from the guy who invited Black Lives (not All Lives) Matter leader, Deray McKesso, who lectured Yale students on the philosophy and importance of looting, to the White House. Or the guy who invited activists behind the Ferguson riots to the White House.

In the end, it is the height of racism to believe that blacks can't be racist, only whites (or any other particular group) can be racists.

#7 mudbug on 2016-07-11 11:39 (Reply)

You really need to work on your credibility muscles.

Obama: "So I think the danger, as I said, is that we somehow suggest that the act of a troubled individual speaks to some larger political statement across the country. It doesn't. When some white kid walks into a church and shoots a bunch of worshippers who invite him to worship with them, we don't assume that somehow he's making a political statement that's relevant to the attitudes of the rest of America."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/09/press-conference-president-obama-after-nato-summit

#7.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 11:46 (Reply)

Who knew that I had to pick the RIGHT quote from Obama. My quote came from an NBC News report on the day after the shooting. So maybe it wasn't "immediately after". I believe it was the next morning. Your quote was from July 7. (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/charleston-church-shooting/charleston-church-shooting-president-obama-deliver-remarks-n377726).

So if you think my "credibility muscle" needs work, I would refer you to NBC (who, admittedly doesn't have the best record on credibility).

#7.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-11 12:45 (Reply)

mudbug: My quote came from an NBC News report on the day after the shooting.

You seem to be mixing up years. The Dylann Roof killings do raise questions about a dark part of U.S. history, as do the more recent killings in Dallas.

mudbug: In the end, it is the height of racism to believe that blacks can't be racist, only whites (or any other particular group) can be racists.

Of course blacks can be racist. While concern over persistent racism in policing is reasonable, Micah Johnson lumped all whites as equally to blame. It's likely the shootings will be treated as a hate crime once the initial investigation is completed.

#7.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 13:28 (Reply)

My point was the difference in Obama's reaction. When it was a white racist who killed blacks, it was something that brings up our "dark past". But when it is a black racist who killed whites, Obama isn't quite sure of his motivation. You say the Dallas shootings bring up a "dark past" but Obama does not.

Obama seems to imply that blacks can't be racist, otherwise he would be quicker to accept racial motivations in the Dallas killings since the perpetrator came out and said what his motivations were.

There are obviously too many cases where police treatment is not the same for whites and blacks, but the situation is much more complicated than the Black Lives Matter folks and their hangers on would believe. There is more crime committed by blacks and blacks are more likely to be victims of crime and so they deal with the police more than whites. Blacks are also more likely to be disrespectful or even belligerent to the police (thus the need for the video you referenced earlier) - Michael Brown being an extreme example. yet the number of white people killed by the police is double the number of blacks.

The Black Lives Matter protests are driven by the perception that blacks are disproportionately killed by the police (and George Soros money) - something that is false (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html) and something the press is not particularly interested in correcting.

#7.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2016-07-11 16:52 (Reply)

mudbug: When it was a white racist who killed blacks, it was something that brings up our "dark past".

Of course it did — for a lot of people.

mudbug: But when it is a black racist who killed whites, Obama isn't quite sure of his motivation.

The headline was "More Lies: Obama Says He Has No Idea Why Racist Anti-White Black Power Activist Killed 5 Cops in Dallas". That's not what he said, though. What he said was that we should be careful about ascribing the radical's political view onto others — specifically mentioning both the case of the white racist and of the black racist.

That doesn't mean it doesn't bring up the "dark past" for many people. The difference is in the institutions, which have changed significantly since that period.

#7.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 17:13 (Reply)

Additionally, if you're concerned about credibility, you might look toward Obama who changed his position on the Dylann Roof's shootings from an indication that it's part of our "dark part of our history" to how we can't immediately ascribe political motives to it.

#7.1.2 mudbug on 2016-07-11 13:46 (Reply)

talk about a limp credibility muscle.

There are numerous left wing and black groups actively and openly advocating the killing of cops and the black caucus and Obama are in it up to their eyeballs. WORSE, none of these groups are backing down one iota and the MSM is literally glorifying them.

Compare that with the response to the crazy nut that shot people in the church. There you see the problem. Our MSM should be all over these racist black groups and individuals. They should be exposing the underbelly; the funders and organizers of this hate. There should be perp walks of anyone who promoted violence and funded violence. Where is the outrage?

#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-07-11 12:10 (Reply)

Beyoncé: “Rest in peace to the officers whose lives were senselessly taken yesterday in Dallas. I am praying for a full recovery of the seven others injured. No violence will create peace. Every human life is valuable. We must be the solution. Every human being has the right to gather in peaceful protest without suffering more unnecessary violence. To effect change we must show love in the face of hate and peace in the face of violence.”
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHoCygChuFj/?hl=en

Yeah. What a terrorist.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 12:22 (Reply)

"Indeed. They are The Law. Regardless of skin color, always be respectful to police "

No, the police are not the law and that is a very pernicious view.

QUOTE:

We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.

Mises, Ludwig von, Liberalism (pp. 35-36).

The police are the physical manifestation of the government's monopoly on violence used to administer the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. They may seize you, remove you from your location and lock you in a cage until the adjudicative elements of the apparatus pass judgement upon you. If you choose not to be seized and locked in a cage, the police will use rising levels of force to force compliance. If during your resistance you create a reasonable belief of imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the police or other, they may use deadly force to stop that threat.

If you want to reduce police violence, then you must reduce the number of laws (and regulations) that they must enforce.

QUOTE:

When we're saying "the government should intervene," we're saying "an organization with guns should threaten to lock people in cages if they don't comply with its dictates."
--Art Carden, Econlog

A private citizen may use deadly force to stop a deadly threat from another person but cannot use the threat of force to enforce compliance with their dictates. The police may use deadly force to stop a deadly threat from another but can use force to enforce compliance with their dictates (subject to review of said dictates as lawful by a judge).

#9 JK Brown on 2016-07-11 13:10 (Reply)

JK Brown: If you choose not to be seized and locked in a cage, the police will use rising levels of force to force compliance.

The counterbalance is the Great Writ.

#9.1 Zachriel on 2016-07-11 13:20 (Reply)

There is a time and place in the process when you are allowed to, even encouraged to, contest the circumstances of your arrest. IN fact you are even entitled to the assistance of an expert to argue on your behalf.

Two a.m. on the side of the highway is not that time and place.

#9.1.1 Another guy named Dan on 2016-07-11 15:41 (Reply)

If you break the law the police can arrest you or cite you. If you resist they can use force to do either of these things. How could it be otherwise? Would you have the police simply stand down if they encounter any resistance? The place for anyone arrested or cited by the police to fight is in the court of law. Fight with words, evidence, facts not fists or guns. The one consistent thing we see in all of these arrests that go bad is the perp resisting arrest. What possible choice does law enforcement have then but to increase the level of force???

#10 GoneWithTheWind on 2016-07-11 14:15 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, July 11. 2016

Monday morning links