Scotties Toy Box

September 3, 2019

Our biggest problem in America is ‘white men with guns’ groomed by GOP rhetoric and made insecure by failed conservative values on masculinity.

Filed under: Asshole / Jerk, Criminal, Fascism, Greed, Gun Control, Harm, News, NRA, Political, Questions — Scottie @ 02:51

White Right Wing men are terrorist in America, not Mexicans. Not immigrants. Not Muslims.

White conservative men are radicalized by Trump and Right Wing media. They are domestic. They are Christian.

If you listen to white conservatives, they project their violence and hatred onto others, create boogeyman, and never take responsibility for their indoctrination and inciting of white terrorists.

Our biggest problem in America is ‘white men with guns’ groomed by GOP rhetoric and made insecure by failed conservative values on masculinity.


  1. Hi Scottie;
    At the risk of being really dark…… I think I’ve figured it out. We were wrong all along. Trump and the republican fail committee are absolute genius! We keep having these white terrorists until Mexico quite willingly builds the damn wall themselves.

    wtf 😦


    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Randy — September 3, 2019 @ 07:57

    • Hello Randy. 🤣😂😎 I remember being overseas in the 1980’s. I would say most of us service members were well respected, but many were seen as the “ugly American”. Idiots who thought they were greater than any other nationality, who thought every country should do as the US did, that the US was the only true civilized country…you get the idea. Now other countries really do not want us visiting. Canada is talking about taking steps to handle the problem on its southern border. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — September 3, 2019 @ 14:02

  2. I agree that America needs to address this problem and “thoughts and prayers” isn’t a solution.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by ospreyshire — September 3, 2019 @ 10:18

    • Hello Ospreyshire. I agree. Thoughts and prayers is a way of wanting to be seen like you are doing something without having to actually do anything. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — September 3, 2019 @ 14:24

  3. YES!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Nan — September 3, 2019 @ 11:33

    • Hello Nan. Funny I thought the problem was caused video games, lack of being forced to publicly pray in a way demanded by authority, lack of teaching the bible in public schools regardless of a person’s religion, mental illness, and a lack of guns being openly carried by everyone from age three and up. Well that is what the “blame anything but the real problem” crowd claims. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — September 3, 2019 @ 14:35

  4. Well …. those reasons too. 😈 😁

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Nan — September 3, 2019 @ 15:42

  5. Playing the race card never fixes the problem. Ever.


    Comment by Lester — September 25, 2019 @ 14:48

    • Hello Lester. This is a statement of fact. No playing any cards. Please look at the mass shooters over the years. They are white males. Hard to argue with facts. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — September 25, 2019 @ 14:50

  6. Is this really true Scottie? Do you really thing the biggest problem in America right now is “white men with guns”, or is this a DNC narrative you just happened to pick up off CNN? Everyone born on this earth has the capacity to do evil, we are all capable of committing the unthinkable. What does race have to do with any of this?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 9, 2019 @ 12:23

  7. Not to mention 36% of Americans are “white men!” Obviously we don’t see women carrying out these shootings, of whom make up apromixmately 50% of the country. Based on what I have stated, of course white men are more likely to commit these heinous crimes, but that’s not to say all white men are racist people with the lifelong intent to kill other people! You obviously have let other people determine for you what is objective and true, instead of researching it yourself. What a pity.


    Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 9, 2019 @ 12:32

    • Hello Dylan. I have researched this. Sorry you don’t like the facts. If you say we have to ban Muslims until we can figure out why they are a threat, when the real threat is white men, shouldn’t we ban white men from owning guns until we can figure it out? The pity Dylan is that people put preconceived notions of not even recognized assumed privilege over the objective facts.

      You are adding apples to oranges trying to get bananas. No one said

      …all white men are racist people with the lifelong intent to kill other people.

      You feeling persecuted? Where you got that I have no idea. That is deflection hyperbole.

      Dylan, do you really want to have a talk about this? We can if you wish. But lets not start with insults. Lets start with the idea we have our views and we shall compare them, and get to the true facts. Lets leave the insults out of it. The idea that All of any group will do such a thing is rather silly don’t you think? Not ALL priest rape kids but a large enough portion do to clearly state it is a serious problem the Catholic church has. See the point? Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — October 9, 2019 @ 13:22

  8. Scottie, we are talking about an issue here supposedly. If the “New York Times” (a former newspaper), not to mention every other far left media outlet says that homeland security reports that white supremacy is on the rise, what are we to do? Personally, I don’t think “white supremacy” is growing at all. In 1920 the KKK was had 4 million nationwide members, now it has somewhere between 3-5K. If you think white supremacist domestic terrorism is a major problem, why don’t you start suggesting what we do about it. Stop indentifying problems that I would say hardly exist and then provide no solution for them. I want to know, what do you suggest we do If this problem really exists?


    Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 9, 2019 @ 13:46

    • Hello Dylan. Again you can not help yourself from coloring things can you? The New York Times is a newspaper regardless if you like it or not. It is a functioning media company that makes money providing reporting to subscribers and a few others. That is reality, and it doesn’t change because you don’t like the content.

      OK Let look at your idea that white supremacy is not on the rise using KKK stats. The fact is that the KKK was nearly a shadow of it’s former self nationally.

      The Great Depression in the 1930s depleted the Klan’s membership ranks, and the organization temporarily disbanded in 1944. The civil rights movement of the 1960s saw a surge of local Klan activity across the South, including the bombings, beatings and shootings of black and white activists. These actions, carried out in secret but apparently the work of local Klansmen, outraged the nation and helped win support for the civil rights cause. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson delivered a speech publicly condemning the Klan and announcing the arrest of four Klansmen in connection with the murder of a white female civil rights worker in Alabama. The cases of Klan-related violence became more isolated in the decades to come, though fragmented groups became aligned with neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist organizations from the 1970s onward. In the early 1990s, the Klan was estimated to have between 6,000 and 10,000 active members, mostly in the Deep South.

      This article also reinforces that the KKK is in decline.

      Great problem solved…only no. We are talking white supremacy / white nationalism not the KKK. For clarity I will use the term white nationalist to include both groups as they are the same. To say that white nationalize is declining because the KKK is doing so is to say that because there is a snowstorm climate change is not real.

      Maybe this site can help you.

      I can give you article after article on the rise of white nationalist terrorism and violence. You can also with a simply google search.

      Dylan you are part of the problem when you say they hardly exist. Yet you may claim other threats are super real like immigration, progressive policies, even wealthy distribution. ( you don’t want to go there as it has been aggressively applied to move money from the lower classes to the upper incomes and taking the treasury income to distribute the highest incomes. Facts are pesky things )

      Dylan if you read my blog you would see what I think we need to do as a country. We need education both on social media and schools about how wrong racism is. We need to emphasis how race is mostly a social construct as there are no pure races anymore. Every white supremacists not only has ancestors who started in Africa but are mixed race to a degree themselves.

      Gun control is a needed factor in taking violence out of our country. Yes people can hurt other people with knives and brass knuckles, but they can not harm dozens of people and kill nine in thirty seconds like the shooter in Dayton did with a gun with a 100 round drum.

      OK Dylan. I have done a lot of the work so far in this discussion. I have answered your questions. You need to now step up.

      Do you really think racism has declined? If so why? Do you think the current rhetoric from the administration is racist and why ( or why not )

      I have shown that racism is on the rise and we have not addressed other rising bigotries, what is your solution to the problem of racial inequality? Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — October 11, 2019 @ 04:10

      • I will reply with a rather simple question. If gun control works, what do call Chicago? Have you the stats there lately? Black people are shooting each other at enormous rates, much higher than those we have seen in other parts of the U.S, except they have the most heaviest gun control regulations? Secondly, what defines a hate group? What is needed to constitute a functioning “hate group?”

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 11, 2019 @ 10:32

        • Hello Dylan. Oh yes, Chicago, the old chestnut thrown out by those against gun control regulations. Well lets see, Chicago is a island surrounded by a high wall and beyond that is a huge ocean on all sides, right? The fact is it is easy to get around the cities gun control regulations. A short car ride away are sellers without the restrictions of the city. There are a lot of urban myths about Chicago and gun violence, including how strict the gun control laws are. They are not true. Here is a link for you as I wont copy the whole report.

          Here are a few quotes though.


          No. This is a common misconception based partly on the national attention Chicago has attracted in recent years. The Pew Research Center reported in November that when adjusting for population, Chicago has recorded fewer murders per capita than many other smaller U.S. cities. Chicago ranked 14th among cities with at least 100,000 people in 2017. FBI statistics released this fall found St. Louis had the highest murder rate in 2017 — 66.1 homicides per 100,000 people. The Pew report said Chicago did have the highest actual number of homicides in the past few years. In 2016, there were 762 homicides. Last year, homicides dropped to 650. As of Dec. 6, there were 534.


          No. Trump and his administration have wrongly made this assertion . Chicago passed a ban on handgun ownership in 1982. Those who’d already purchased and registered their handguns were allowed to keep them. In 2010, the ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2013, Illinois became the last state in the nation to approve concealed carry.

          And one more.


          According to the Trace Report, about 40 percent of illegally used or possessed firearms recovered in Chicago from 2013 to 2016 came from dealers in Illinois. The remaining 60 percent came from states with less regulation over firearms. Indiana accounted for about 1 in 5 of these weapons, followed by Mississippi and Wisconsin. The report says these trends have been consistent over the past decade. In the same time span, seven gun or sporting goods stores in Illinois were the top 10 source dealers of recovered weapons in Chicago. Three others were in Indiana.

          As to your hate group question.

          A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

          Be well. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — October 11, 2019 @ 12:02

          • Look Scottie, we can’t have a rational discussion if all you are doing is citing NBC articles and the New York Times, obviously we both have different opinions when it comes to the the media being extremely bias and subjective, so it would be nearly impossible for either of us to get anywhere with these arguments. I would also like to note that I think you have way to much time on your hands, you must either be a retired millionaire, or just someone who lives off welfare and stays home everyday with his cat. I have many liberal friends on the internet, many of whom I have great discussions with all of the time, but I have noticed you are very naive when it comes to questioning your assumptions, and you oftentimes resort to quoting what I believe to be dishonest news organizations. Thanks for your time. – Dylan


            Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 14, 2019 @ 10:52

            • Hello Dylan. I use and document sources, you give opinions. I also notice you doing an ad hominem fallacy by discussing me rather than the subjects we were talking about. Well Dylan you have yet to back up anything you claim, and I have shown facts backed up by investigative sources, well known researched papers, and established accepted online articles. Your attempts to divert when you have no factual response and your attempt to take the discussion in an emotional direction shows you have only emotion and not substance to your claims. As for my time, you came to my blog and left a comment asking questions. I answered them, and you returned and repeat. If you do not like facts you can either stop asking questions or stop coming to my Toy Box. Be well. Hugs


              Comment by Scottie — October 14, 2019 @ 12:10

  9. The topic is “white men with guns groomed by GOP rhetoric”, which is a stereotypical title that assumes all white men that own guns are inherently groomed by GOP rhetoric. This is false, not all white men that own guns support every political movement the GOP makes. But, I’m not going to continue to argue identity politics. The fact is, there is no evidence in the US that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence. As much as you enjoy making bullshit arguments based on race and gender, you don’t have a conclusion. Ok, so you identified that the biggest problem in the US is “white men with guns”, now what is your solution to that problem? The left is constantly saying “we need to take away guns”, but then again, “there is no evidence in the US that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence”, so now what?


    Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 14, 2019 @ 14:09

    • Hello Dylan. Your back. I thought you were done with our discussions. No you have the topic slightly wrong. You asked if it was true that white men with guns was really our biggest problem or was it a DNC narrative picked off CNN. When I showed you it was a clear problem acknowledged by our own government you kept switching topics to other inflammatory right wing talking talking points. Each I refuted with verified facts. Evidence for stricter gun laws enhancing safety is easy to find. Here are some.

      Siegel’s latest study, published July 30, 2019, in the Journal of Rural Health, reinforces previous research findings that laws designed to regulate who has firearms are more effective in reducing shootings than laws designed to control what types of guns are permitted. The study looked at gun regulation state by state in comparison with FBI data about gun homicides, gathered from police departments around the country. Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

      It’s a particularly compelling finding because in March 2019, Siegel and collaborators drew virtually the same conclusion by analyzing state laws in comparison with death certificate data collected nationally by the CDC.

      by–A06.jpg which clearly shows that states with stronger gun laws have much less gun violence. From

      Children living in states with strict firearm laws are less likely to die from gun violence than those in states with more lax restrictions, according to a study in Pediatrics published Monday. The more rigorous the rules, the lower the risk, the researchers showed.


      The evidence is clear—states with stronger gun laws have lower gun death rates, year after year.


      So now what you ask. First, Dylan if you have any research to back up your misstatements of facts, please show them. Just making an assertion as it it was carved into a stone tablet by a deity is worthless unless there is some type of evidence to support or reasoning showing how the conclusion is acceptable based on the known factors. As for the solutions, you know what they are. Gun control laws, strictly applied, and education to decrease false gun myths and common misconceptions of the macho gun mystique. These are very good places to start.

      Oh Dylan if you are expecting me to rise to your baiting and attacking tactics you might as well go else where for your jollies. I simply don’t play the game and wont be much fun for you. It simply is not in my nature to even entertain the digs and slams and I just skip right over them. I left grade school long ago and was never that concerned with childish insults. I prefer adult conversation, as one can learn a lot more from them.


      Comment by Scottie — October 14, 2019 @ 14:41

      • Can you at least collaborate your ideas into a thought? Please cite what you think, or at least a rational argument, not someone else’s assumptions? Please tell me what happened in the U.K with their ban on all hand guns in 1997, everyone now kills each other with kitchen knives, what do say to that?


        Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 14, 2019 @ 16:15

        • Hello Dylan. Ah yes, other weapons than guns. How devious the human species we can make anything a weapon. So true. Yes you can kill someone with a knife. You can even injure a bunch of people with a knife. Dylan what you can not do is kill 9 people and hurt a bunch of others in less than 30 seconds as was done in Dayton with a knife. The assailant had a weapon with a 100 round drum and would have killed / injured a lot more if the local police had not arrived and shot him within 30 seconds.

          Dylan you surely have more reasoning ability than that question implies. You have to see the fallacy of comparing a weapon designed to kill with something that has a different use but can be used to kill. You talk about rational arguments and then you pose this? Also citing well investigated source material is not some else’s assumptions. But you really do not want to make a pro-gun argument based on countries that have strict gun laws, as world wide it is proven that countries that do so have much less gun violence.

          So Dylan, I have answered everything you have asked honestly and with evidence. How about you also reciprocate in the conversation. Tell me what you believe about the subject of gun violence and what this started on which is white males have been responsible for almost all of the mass shootings in the last two years in the US. Please cite the reasons and the evidence you base that position on. However as we pretty much have nailed this topic down would you like to start a new one for us to discuss? Let me know. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — October 14, 2019 @ 16:32

          • Yes, I would rather move on. I will admit, my gun control argument is not all that formulated to my standards yet, so for now we will say it’s undergoing remodeling. What do you think about intersectionality, and the recently designed “equality act?”

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 14, 2019 @ 18:11

            • Hello Dylan. I am glad to have a talk on those subjects with you. I am not up on the equality act so I will need to do some research into it. As to intersectionality I think that to rank discrimination is a weird way of claiming to be a bigger victim than someone else. Two wrongs do not make a right do they? Now can a person be discriminated against in different ways , yes of course. For example a gay person may face discrimination in one area of their life, but if they are also wheelchair bound they face other types of discrimination for that. Both types of discrimination are wrong, but I do not see that we need to add up all the ways that person is discriminated against to arrive at a discrimination score. It is enough to say the discrimination is wrong and work towards fixing the problem.

              What do you think of these issues? I will soon be offline so if you reply I will get back to you in the morning. Hugs


              Comment by Scottie — October 14, 2019 @ 18:25

            • Hello Dylan. To expand on what I was saying about intersectionality in my first responce, it is true that when looking into an issue one has to take in to account factors that contribute to that issue. However that data should be used to understand the issue and not to afford higher status of victim hood. For example poverty in different areas and groups has many factors that must be considered in order to help fix the problem, but we do not use those factors to assign a score of victimization. Discrimination and victimization shouldn’t be a ranking system nor a system to have a score card on. They are things to be eliminated as much as possible.

              I see it as a tool , not a goal. It is a tool to understand what has caused a situation. I can not see it used as a status symbol. Hugs


              Comment by Scottie — October 15, 2019 @ 04:28

  10. The most important thing I stress to tell everyone in life is the notion of self improvement and taking responsibility of what is before you. When discussing intersectionality I can’t understand why people feel the need to tally up their “so-called” societal disadvantages into a score. The truth is, we all have disadvantages (some we can’t change), and I don’t believe it is necessary to promote entitlement through one’s personal victimhood. What do you think?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 15, 2019 @ 11:15

    • Hello Dylan. I don’t think we can lump disadvantages in with discrimination. Discrimination is something another person does to someone, disadvantage is a lack of ability in an area. It is not an entitlement to not be discriminated against, it should be a goal of society. It should also be a goal of society to create access to all those disadvantaged so they can full participate in and add to our society. I think we have to be careful of the terms we use as that can change and color the discussion. Words like “so called” and “promote entitlements” are misleading at best and attempts to insert unnecessary division at worst. Often the word “entitlements” is thrown around incorrectly to mean programs that have been paid for by the person using them or are a part of our community responsibility that some people object to so they use the word incorrectly to try to color the discussion. Those who do so try to give the impression that an entitlement is unearned no matter what it is, which is not true. There are unearned / undeserved benefits in our society that some people assume they have a right to, such as white privilege, something I benefit from because I was born white not because I earned it. However not all entitlements are under that umbrella, many are legitimately deserved, earned, and people have a right to them.

      I think on intersectionality the people using it see a problem they do not know how to address. So to try to understand the problem they made a ranking system to help themselves work out the solutions. However they simply make the problem worse rather than work on the over all issues of discrimination. For example being a POC means you will face certain kinds of discrimination, being a woman means you will face another. If you are a woman POC you face both. However that doesn’t mean your struggles with discrimination deserve more effort or attention than that of a transperson or an First Nation woman. It shouldn’t be a score system, but a way to address the many problems in our unequal society.

      Lastly Dylan you use the word empowerment. That only works for those of a certain affluence and position. If you have no income, no housing, a debilitating illness or other such factor you can not empower your way out of it. Poor people are not poor because they deserve it, that they are not good with money, or that they are un-empowered. Empowerment is a luxury you can have after the other solutions are effective. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — October 15, 2019 @ 12:21

      • I don’t think society is entirely unequal, but probably partially. Of course we always want to be striving to become better in America. When I see racism and sexism, I address it, but there is one truth I can guarantee you can’t disagree with, “America will never be perfect.” Perfection is something human beings will never be able to achieve completely, as much as we may try to obtain perfection it is inevitably impossible. Intersectionality is not a solution to any problems, it’s a flammable near a smoldering cigarette bud, and it gives people reason to be outraged. There really is no genuine solution in my book to solve discrimination problems, the second you try to fix them you start taking away some else’s rights. Do you think regulating speech (particularly so-called “hate speech”) would be a benefit for the movement against discrimination, or would it invade the right of others in the process?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 15, 2019 @ 12:48

        • Hello Dylan. We can balance rights in our country, because we already do. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Your right of speech has limits also. You can not yell fire in a crowed theater is the common example, but there is also the laws against speech to incite imminent harm which the SCOTUS have upheld. I am not a big fan of hate speech laws. I prefer to hear what is said and then combat it by destroying the argument with a better argument. I do not agree with deplatforming for the same reason. What do you think? I think it is important to hear what your opponent has to say, what their arguments are, and also the way they think on those subjects. Then I can effectively counter them. Hard to do that if you don’t let them speak.

          Hate crime legislation is a different matter, but you did not ask about that.

          In our society, communities, our country no one has the right to to cause harm to others with out legal due process. Also we have to have laws that promote the common good. These laws have worked to reduce discrimination in a lot of areas. Some places have used them to better effect than others, and you have to have people willing to put the practices into effect. Take the ADA for example. That law has made a world of improvement to millions of disabled people in our country. Look at the good the civil rights laws have done. Title 6 of that act has been a huge success to assist women in gaining equality. You say there is no genuine solution to discrimination, so you would simply not try? You would let the perfect be the enemy of the good? We lose when we do not try to create an equal society where everyone has equal rights.

          But lets talk specifics if you want. Lets talk about what remedies to prevent discrimination invade the rights of others. What would you want to see done to improve society and why. What remedies do you think are incorrect and why. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Scottie — October 15, 2019 @ 13:23

          • Primarily we must identify what constitutes as “equal rights”, and the Declaration of Independence lays that out clearly. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without life we wouldn’t have liberty, and without liberty we wouldn’t be able to pursue happiness. This is by far my definition for the foundation of “equal rights”, and I think all Americans citizens are enjoying the benefit of what our founders established. For now, I am a separatist when it comes to advocating for more government intervention in anti-discrimination and hate speech laws, because I think we are at the most least aggressive time in our country currently (except when it comes to Trump). Black people aren’t getting lynched, Japanese people aren’t residing at internment camps, and we just had a woman almost win the presidency. I’d say racism, sexism, and bigotry are dying slowly. New generations of children are being born into a country where they can expect to survive healthily for extended periods of time. Mothers don’t necessarily die as often during childbirth, and gun violence is down.


            Of course there is always room for improvement, but that’s a culture problem bound to be fixed, not by the government. You can’t use “fighting words”, which incite direct violence towards another individual, and you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but anymore regulation than that and you start invading free speech rights. Trust me, that’s not somewhere you want to go.

            You can reply, I am going offline for a while, but I won’t be able to respond till tomorrow. Thanks for the great discussion.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 15, 2019 @ 14:30

            • ** Hello Dylan. You may want to grab a drink and some snacks before reading this. This got long and that was after I cut a bunch out. I got into the discussion, looking things up and such I went down a few rabbit holes and got long winded. 😀😄 **

              Hello Dylan. Interesting reply. To start I think we need to agree what rights are. Rights are privileges granted under the government where you are. There is an idea of what should be human rights for everyone, but that is an ideal, not rights in practice. In practice rights are different from country to country. So in the US our rights are what we can convince our government to accord us, and to enforce for us. That last part is going to be the problem of equal rights.

              Using the phrase life, liberty, and happiness means nothing about equal rights? It doesn’t provide a foundation because the words are too vague and can be argued to mean so many different things. Take happiness for example, my happiness maybe something that causes harm to your happiness. We need something better. How about all people being treated equally under the law and in society. That seems reasonable to me as a starting point.

              You say you do not think we should have more government laws for anti-discrimination. You use as an example that black people are not getting lynched. Yet we can show that black people are not equal under the laws and in society. Voter suppression efforts that target POC, POC disproportionately arrested and convicted, POC dying at the hands of police officers at a greatly higher rate, education systems for POC are drastically underfunded and inferior compared to white schools. There is a large income disparity between POC and white people. Housing discrimination and red line loan denials are a big problem for POC. Simply put racism is resurging in the US and is now more openly practiced than in decades. I think we can do better and we will need laws to do so. Also stricter enforcement of those laws. Look at the purges in the voter rolls that hit POC hardest since the SCOTUS invalidated parts of the voting rights act.

              Women still do not have the ERA amendment passed. They do not have equal employment opportunities. The do not get equal pay for the same jobs. They do not share the same rights as men to make medical decisions over their own bodies. For example many states require a married woman to get her husbands permission for a tubal ligation, but the husband can get a vasectomy without even telling his wife. Sexism is on the rise again just as racism.

              Mothers dying in birth.

              More U.S. women are dying from pregnancy or childbirth complications today than in recent history, causing alarm stateside as maternal mortality drops worldwide.

              The United Nations set a goal to reduce the global maternal mortality rate by 75% between 1990 and 2015, and while most nations succeeded in lowering that number, the U.S. has experienced an uptick in recent years. A report published in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found that from 2000 to 2014, the maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, D.C. increased 27% from close to 19 deaths per 100,000 live births to close to 24 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Texas, the rate doubled between 2010 to 2012.

              The US ranks 46th in the world for mothers dying during child birth. We can do better on this.

              I noticed the Washington post article you linked to was in 2015. The stats did not seem correct to me so I looked it up. We have seen a drastic rise in the last few years. 2017 is the last year we have full data for as yet.

              In 2017, gun deaths reached their highest level since 1968 with 39,773 deaths by firearm, of which 23,854 were by suicide and 14,542 were homicides. The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day.


              I think we need to add healthcare as a right in this country. We have a horrible system, I use to work in the ICU’s of a major hospital. I had trouble researching this one because of the different variations of single payer and universal healthcare, but some where between 58 to 112 countries in the world offer some version of free healthcare. We claim to be the richest nation on earth, so we should be able to do it also. Heck Israel has universal healthcare and we give them billions of dollars in aid a year.

              Dylan we have not even began to address the need for laws protecting the LGBTQ communities. The number of ways that LGBTQ+ in our country are discriminated against is sickening. Here is a way to test if it is discrimination. Take out the words gay, or same sex and insert black or Jewish. Now if you can say it is wrong with the substituted words it is wrong for the originals. There is a deliberate push by certain groups to strip rights and equality from the LGBTQ+ and under this administration they are winning.

              No one gains when anyone is suffering discrimination. Not the person, not the people, and not the country.

              OK so we have established we are not perfect and that we have a long ways to go to get rid of discrimination. How to achieve it. Well that is where the idea that rights are what the government gives us and will enforce. So we do need new laws and their enforcement at federal levels. Best at federal as then you do not have a patch work of laws that change in different places. Business do not like that as it is hard to hire and keep the best qualified workers if their rights are diminished in the areas of the business.

              Dylan you imply that anti-discrimination laws limit free speech. I don’t follow that reasoning due to the many different types of laws needed covering a wide verity of subjects. We have both agreed that hate speech laws are counter productive, or I thought we did. I am not talking counting hate speech laws as anti-discrimination laws. Nor am I interested in policing thoughts, I find that argument to be just silly, don’t you? Any laws should be about actions, either proscribing them or preventing them. Oh and I have been in authoritarian countries. As you are 15 you are far too young to remember the USSR and East / West Berlin. I served in West Berlin and often went to East Berlin and East Germany. People got shot there for walking on the wrong side of the street.

              Well this got long and I went back and cut a bunch out that really wasn’t germane to the discussion. Let me know if this can form the basis for discussing specific anti-discrimination needs, or if we need talk over parts of this. Be well, have a great night. Hugs


              Comment by Scottie — October 15, 2019 @ 16:11

              • Good morning, I greatly appreciate the response. I do not really have a sufficient amount of time to fact check all of your sources. I tend not to trust polls/statistics as much as I once did, but I can assure you, I will look all of these up soon. As for anti-discrimination laws, we have entirely different opinions on what measures should be taken to ensure equal rights for all. Personally (as I have stated before), I firmly believe that If we were to attempt to implement anymore anti-discrimination legislation/law in the U.S, it would begin to invade the rights of other people. So, for now, I think that we are at a very fair/equal point in society. I think that everyone in the U.S has pretty much the same equal right as the next guy. As for black people disproportionately outnumbering all other ethnicities in the prisons, I don’t think that’s racism at all, I think that is a culture problem. I think this because they occupy the same percent (50%) of the prisons in the UK as well.


                Not to mention that 90% of all black homicide deaths are inflicted by other black people. This means that If you are a POC you have a 90% chance of getting shot by another POC in your lifetime. That is insane.

                You addressed multiple topics in your last response, but possibly could we keep our discussion to a minimum of 1-2 topics? Thanks.

                Liked by 1 person

                Comment by Dylan Shetler — October 16, 2019 @ 10:20

                • Hello Dylan, happy afternoon. I understand time limits, I was busy my self this morning and for the next two mornings. Take all the time you wish to answer and to check things. I admire your willingness to do fact checking rather than just assume things are what we are told or think they are. I have often started checking something out that totally changed my understanding of a subject simply because what I thought were the facts were not. Plus things change so fast it is good to look up the new information.

                  I am interested in why you think ensuring rights of people discriminated against decreases the rights of others. I do not see equality as a zero sum result where one must lose for others to win. I would love for you to give me some examples of where one person loses rights to ensure equality for others. Denying the opportunity to oppress others is not persecution. Some of the most prosperous societies on Earth are the most expansive on human rights, such as the Scandinavian countries.

                  You claim we are at a fair / equal point in society. Yet that it can be clearly shown we do not have equality. We have some groups privileged over others. That is not fair. We can not have an equitable society that works for everyone while some groups are marginalized and others are elevated. The status quo we have today will fail under its own inequality. Societies are like people, to prosper they must grow and improve. If they stagnate or regress they begin to fail.

                  The fact is people are not equal in our country. It was not until 2015 I could legal marry my husband. We had been together 26 years as a couple by then. This begins our 30th year. Why is that important. Marriage in the US is not and never has been the purview of religion, but a permission granted by the State. Marriage provides over 1,100 federal and state rights to couples not given to non-married couples. They run the gambit from legal rights in courts, property assets, parental rights, medical rights, joint property rights, inheritance rights, insurance rights, taxation rights, and so much more. I have seen long term couples have to fight for medical visitations and rights to make medical decisions for each other when such things were automatically given to opposite gender couples. In 26 states a same gender couple can get married on the weekend and be fired on Monday, but not a opposite gendered couple. In many states a gay person can be kicked out of a rental housing for no cause other than being gay, but a straight person can not. This is only one area of inequality of of our society Dylan, there are many more.

                  As for black people in prisons, they occupy far more than 50%. Plus the idea that they commit more crimes than whites is why they are imprisoned more is incorrect. It is denying the truth of white privilege and racial bigotry. Look at these facts. Whites and black use marijuana at the same rate. Yet black are overwhelming prosecuted for it and not whites. Police stop and frisk black people while at the same time not doing the same to the white people standing next to them. I have seen this. I am sure you can look up the stats, I have posted them, but if you want me to I can. People of color get prosecuted more, get harsher sentences, and get less leniency than white people. POC do not get accorded bail as often, and always under stricter conditions. I posted a study some time back about how police and judges see black kids compared to white kids. Take two kids 13 / 14 years old. The white kid is seen as a child viewed younger than 13, the black kid is seen as a much older teen or almost adult. The war on drugs was started by Nixon to deliberate try to hamper the black vote. It was wrongly thought that white kids did not do drugs but black kids did. But making the loss of voting rights part of a drug sentence you can disenfranchise an entire area of black people by targeting them for drug possession or use. Here in Florida where I live we passed a constitutional amendment to give voting rights back to 1.4 million felons most of who were black people convicted of nonviolent drug crimes. The republican governor and state legislature worked very hard to subvert that by adding a bunch of rules into the law for it designed to make it so those people can not get back their vote. Why? Because the majority of those people are black. The 1960’s equal rights marches and activities were the start of the fight for equality, not the end of it.

                  I would like to offer you some studies that show the idea of black harming black is a distortion, because those same stats show about the same for whites. But no one claims whites are bad because they mostly attack other whites.

                  The Justice Department’s statistics-crunching arm just blew up a whole stack of white-supremacist myths about the nature of interracial crime and violence committed by minorities.

                  In a report released Thursday titled Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-2015, the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that a majority of most violent crimes are committed by people who are the same race as their victims. Indeed, the rate of white-on-white violent crime, it found, is about four times the rate of black-on-white crime.


                  Why don’t black people ever talk about black-on-black crime?

                  Instead of rejecting the entire notion as a method of deflection and privilege, we will attempt to formally dismiss the conversation forever by laying out the facts about why white America never hears us talk about black-on-black crime.
                  It’s not a thing.

                  According to the FBI’s uniform crime-reporting data for 2016, 90.1 percent of black victims of homicide were killed by other blacks, while 83.5 percent of whites were killed by other whites. While no life is inconsequential, the statistical evidence shows that—just as for blacks when it comes to black-on-black crime—whites are mostly victimized by other whites, with the vast majority of white murders committed by whites. This is because most victims of crime personally know their assailants. And while this is a truth across racial boundaries, no one ever talks about “white-on-white crime.”

                  Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ arrest data analysis tool shows that less than 1 percent of blacks overall (about 2 percent of black men) commit a violent crime in any given year. This means, factoring in interracial violent offenses, 99 percent of black men do not commit black-on-black crime.


                  I would suggest reading the whole articles at the links, not just my quotes. I found information in them I was not aware of and I try to keep up with the attacks against POC and the LGBTQ+. Yes I understand time is pressing for all of us, but it helps to be informed of the true data if we are to separate myth from fact.

                  Dylan you want to know who I am most likely to be assaulted or killed by in the US. White Christian males. As an out gay man in a same gender marriage with a widely read blog I much more at risk from a white Christian than I am from a Muslim or black person. I have even had death treats here on my blog from people claiming to be doing their God’s bidding.

                  I agree my responses have been long. They have taken a lot of time to research and to write. But the fault is not all mine. I am responding to what you write. Your last comment was rather vague and I thought we needed to get sort of on the same page. Other wise I would be responding to things you never said, and you would be doing the same. I agree we try to address only one or two things at a time. As you have just followed my blog I am sure my posts will give you plenty of things to voice your opinion on. I will let you begin the conversations and we will let them wind out where they go until either or both of decided we have hashed it far enough.

                  Have a great night. Hugs


                  Comment by Scottie — October 16, 2019 @ 15:04

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: