Safe.

Fashion CEO Tamara Cincik is assaulted on a tube.

Strangely, she's quite magnanimous toward her assailant, but is far less kind toward two men who simply removed themselves from the situation instead of helping her.

How awful. It's as if total strangers aren't obligated to lift a finger to help you when you're in distress and that responsibility for your own safety falls on you.

"We find that users in states with higher birth rates search for more information about pregnancy, while those in states with lower birth rates search for more information about cats."

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149025

Suicide Rates at Japanese Train Stations Have Plummeted by 84% Thanks to Simple Solution

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/suicide-rates-at-japanese-train-stations-have-plummeted-by-84-thanks-to-simple-solution/

Snoopy, that's very interesting. Some years ago, I was working on a project that involved an aerospace contractor in Japan. I had to take a train out of Tokyo to their location and back every day. Suicides on the tracks were an almost daily occurrence, and every time it happened, it held up trains for hours while the police investigated.

Patrick, I think it’s pretty horrifying when people don’t get involved regardless of sex and stature. She said that they could have even pulled the cord to get an attendant. That is a very low stakes involvement.

Perhaps those men were afraid that they would have been held to a higher standard...stil.....

I dove into the middle of a domestic dispute to protect a woman. There were hundreds of people around. I thought they should all step in, united. Unfortunately, that was not the way it played out. Other people ignored the aggressive man, and my husband picked me up and carried me away, so I wasn’t any help. My husband said if there was trouble, the man would have turned to him, and he felt threatened.

So, you think that she should have a weapon? Would that be safe to use on a crowded train?

I remain more angry with those white middle class men who left me to it. As fathers, husbands and sons they should be ashamed of themselves.

She knew nothing about those men. Perhaps they had a valid reason for leaving the incident car.

And she has nothing to say about the NHS which left a violent mentally ill man free to menace the public.

'cause it's all about demonizing middle-class white men. Basically, she's criticizing those "white middle class men" for not having enough of that "toxic masculinity" feminists are always going on about.

By the way, dearie, that "Eastern European" man that helped you was a white man, too. And he might have been middle class as well.

Would [a weapon] be safe to use on a crowded train? ~ Jen at June 7, 2018 6:49 AM

No, using a weapon in a crowd is never "safe." Sometimes necessary, but never "safe."

Strangely, she's quite magnanimous toward her assailant, but is far less kind toward two men who simply removed themselves from the situation instead of helping her.

Well, the assailant is described as "asian", which is code for Pakistani. So, magnanimous it is.

On the other hand, she shouldn't be surprised. Men, particular those who are members of the Wite-out tribe, have been slagged on for many years for having toxic masculinity. So, either they didn't want to be accused of a hate crime, of being toxic, or they've received treatment for their condition and they're incapable of defending themselves.

Not to mention that we've been preached at that anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well if not better. Oh, wait, that's not true!

Sow. Reap. Wind. Whirlwind. Some assembly required.

She said that they could have even pulled the cord to get an attendant. That is a very low stakes involvement.

Then they'd have to give a statement to the police. This is England, were there are people in jail for their speech. I can't say I blame them for not getting involved: say the wrong thing in your statement, go to jail for many months.

Why didn't she pull the cord? one of the other passengers? or right knee, left ball, nothing but pocket? I don't care how insane you are, that will get your attention in a way few things will.

So, you think that she should have a weapon?

No, probably not. Well, depends on the weapon. It is England, so no firearms. No knives, either. Maybe a tactical pen such as https://amzn.to/2HuwyMf or tactical flashlight, but both work better with more upper body strength. But then if she had used either, she might be facing charges.

That's what happens when the government demands you disarm yourself and run away: you're left to the tender mercies of unlawful or crazy who may well be armed.

This is environmentally friendly...how?

Worried about food miles? The solution according to these greens is growing food in your basement under grow lights.

...

Its difficult to see how you could produce enough energy to replace millions of acres of farmland from a few wind turbines.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/climate-idea-reduce-food-miles-with-urban-food-produced-under-grow-lights/

So, maybe a movie entitled The Last Munchkin?

http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-jerry-maren-20180606-story.html

Yikes, indeed!

https://twitter.com/MichaelEstimeWX/status/1003585827807645696/photo/1

I was assured by feminists that no woman ever lied about rape and this was unpossible.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/05/former-college-student-who-claimed-rape-admits-it-was-all-lies/

I remain more angry with those white middle class men who left me to it. As fathers, husbands and sons they should be ashamed of themselves.

These would be the men who grew up with the constant drum beat that women neither needed or wanted their help? That women could do anything a man could do? That women were equal and capable of navigating the world without the assistance of men?

So, either they didn't want to be accused of a hate crime, of being toxic, or they've received treatment for their condition and they're incapable of defending themselves.

Or they are brilliant assholes pissing off women by giving them exactly what they claim to want

Love hypocrisy and outrage of all stripes, but these day more of it is coming from the left

https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/status/1004712935938297857

In the U.K. you can go to jail for defending yourself. This, coupled with the nationality of the thug in question, makes standing up for stranger very unlikely. The lesson has been learned; keep your head down and your eyes and hands to yourself.

"Well, the assailant is described as 'asian', which is code for Pakistani. So, magnanimous it is."

As we speak, a guy named Tommy Robinson is in prison, convicted in a star-chamber proceeding, for criticizing the British government's kid-gloves treatment of the Pakistani "grooming" (read: rape) gangs. Yeah, I wouldn't have gotten involved either. I mind my station. Fortunately, us Americans don't have to worry about that -- yet.

https://twitter.com/TheAVClub/status/1004533422516252672

This is why cries of fake news are so prevalent, click bait headlines and a fourth hand blurb about a third hand summary of a second hand synopsis of an article that never really explains shit to begin with

I finally cracked the ten second mark between posting something on twitter and being blocked, oddly enough it had nothing to do with politics or feminisism

https://twitter.com/lujlp/status/1004787935340711936

We only have hear-say evidence? good enough for college work!

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/45618/

oddly enough it had nothing to do with politics or feminisism

But plenty to do with religion. Just remember:

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

So many topics are now verboten at the post-modern university, that it is necessary to hold academic conferences in secret.

And an off-topic thought, inspired by a recent family tragedy: Tell the people you love that you love them. Do it today. Because you never know what's going to happen tomorrow.

Best wishes CD

Ditto, CD.

Ditto, CD.

Cousin Dave, I hope you're well.

Conan:

'cause it's all about demonizing middle-class white men. Basically, she's criticizing those "white middle class men" for not having enough of that "toxic masculinity" feminists are always going on about.

You (and others) have hit on something that I almost included in my post, but decided not to, because I wanted to see how people would react to it.

I was reminded of the whole, "Stop telling me to take precautions to protect myself! That's blaming the victim! Teach men not to rape!"

The staggering idiocy of this idea was best summed up in a monumentally stupid article by Zerlina Maxwell. She insists that we "don't put it on me to prevent the rape."

Which is like saying, "Don't tell me to lock my doors when I go out! Teach people not to rob!"

She refuses to take any responsibility for her own safety, but one of her points is called "Bystander Intervention."

In other words, she thinks it doesn't fall on her to prevent her own victimization, but she demands that total strangers intervene on her behalf.

As I said before, no one has any legal obligation whatsoever to aid you in distress. (Exceptions include your parents if you're underage, or someone whose actions placed you in distress.)

With this in mind, the only person responsible for your safety is you. But I'm sure the feminists are lobbying to change that. If they had their way, every man in a five mile radius of a rape in progress would be obligated to drop what they're doing and immediate help the victim.

(ADDENDUM: Someone tried to tell me on Facebook that if you live in South Carolina and have a Concealed Weapons Permit, you are obligated to intervene if you see a crime in progress. Even if you're not carrying at the time. I seriously doubt this. The Supreme Court has ruled that not even law enforcement is obligated to protect you from harm, even if you have a restraining order. Seems odd that a state could require civilians to protect you, even if law enforcement isn't. I wrote South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, since they have an FAQ about Concealed Weapons Permits, and asked if that was true. I haven't heard back from them yet.)

"So, you think that she should have a weapon? Would that be safe to use on a crowded train?"

Setting aside the plain fact that possession of a weapon is prohibited there - just why do you think the safety of others has priority over defending yourself?

Thank you everybody. We take it one day at a time.

(ADDENDUM: Someone tried to tell me on Facebook that if you live in South Carolina and have a Concealed Weapons Permit, you are obligated to intervene if you see a crime in progress. Even if you're not carrying at the time. I seriously doubt this. The Supreme Court has ruled that not even law enforcement is obligated to protect you from harm, even if you have a restraining order. Seems odd that a state could require civilians to protect you, even if law enforcement isn't. I wrote South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, since they have an FAQ about Concealed Weapons Permits, and asked if that was true. I haven't heard back from them yet.)

Patrick at June 7, 2018 4:39 PM

Rubbish. How would you even know for sure that what you are witnessing in a crime in progress, and not some prank or law enforcement exercise?

> We take it one day at a time.

In my experience that only works in retrospect, though it's indisputably the best approach. Our thoughts are with you in this hour.




In other news, consider the tweets responding to this one.

First of all, it's Sherman, okay? The guy's blue-chip, he's money in the bank, as is Skeptic magazine. There's perhaps nobody in public life who epitomizes a street-comfortable approach to beliefs and intellectual life: Anyone who would criticize him as personally and harshly as do the respondent tweets should be standing of a firm foundation of of apparent reasoning (or citation), and none of them are.

Secondly, I've been aware of JPeterson for a few months now. I've seen some videos and interviews, but haven't read his books. The thing is... He's boring. He doesn't say outrageous things, he says mundane things, with mild academic illumination.

Those so eager to depict Peterson as monstrous convey nothing so much as a ferocious, bloodthirsty need for butthurt... As if they've lived lives of featureless, quotidian comfort, unchallenged by poverty, violence, hunger, desperation, or the savagery of the natural world. If you think Jordan Peterson is a source of danger on our planet, then you've never tried to accomplish anything... You've never tried to hire others and turn a profit, or made an effort at public persuasion, or make an impact on a large organization, or make room for yourself in a team in difficult or dangerous circumstances.

Okay, I've shoulda writ that some better, but you see what I as getting at. All these wounded, condemnatory personalities finding a (whiny) voice in 21st century social media don't ever seem to have accomplished anything, or even to have interrogated the world to see how they might do so.

"I wrote South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, since they have an FAQ about Concealed Weapons Permits, and asked if that was true. I haven't heard back from them yet."

Patrick, with just a couple of exceptions about which we are vehement, you make sense. This sort of thing is exactly what I recommend FIRST whenever watercooler conversation turns to firearms possession: check the law yourself.

You bet your own life that you are correct when you use deadly force, and it cannot be said enough that you must know what your State requires of you, should you need to. Thanks for checking this out.

Inspired by Patrick's post, I spent some time last night researching Good Samaritan laws in the U.S. One thing that seems pretty clear: Unless you are a professional first responder (and usually not even then), there is no "duty to rescue", and state attempts to pass laws to the contrary have consistently been shot down in court. The most that the state and federal laws allow is a requirement that if you see someone in need of rescue, you have a duty to notify authorities, and that's it. I found no exceptions for citizens who are armed, concealed or otherwise.

Interestingly, a lot of the state laws have specific language covering the placement of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), and their use by non-professionals. In most states, the language is quite permissive, and a non-professional using an AED in an emergency situation is absolutely shielded from liability. I would not use an AED to rescue someone in Louisiana, because its laws appear to require that anyone who uses an AED must be certified by the Red Cross, or similar, in CPR and AED use. And if I were a business owner in Kentucky, I would not have an AED on my premises, because liability exists if a business employee uses an AED on another employee or a customer. There is also a significant regulatory burden that attaches (e.g., the device must be periodically inspected by a doctor), with attendant liability if all of the regulations are not followed.

About AEDs: CD, having been to classes regarding AED use, I wonder if those restrictive jurisdictions even know what they are. An AED is automatic, and WILL NOT activate on a person with a normal heartbeat or in the absence of one. I suppose someone got spooked by the word, "shock".