 |
| Don't be this meme. |
On June 14th, awa posted the following article on Gun Free Zone:
What about the little puppies?
In a nutshell, some whackdoodle outside L.A. decided not to adopt pets to anyone who owns guns, and doesn't kiss Gun Control's pustulent suppurating ass.
By all means, RTWT.
It's an obviously outrageous insertion of woketard politics into a pet adoption process where it has absolutely no business whatsoever.
Being up and about shortly after it appeared, I posted the first response to the post:
And they ascertain this information from people…how, exactly?
To which fellow commenter Divemedic helpfully replied later that AM:
Reading their website, they insist on an hour long interview where you will be grilled on your beliefs about gun control and other liberal talking points. They also insist on inspecting your home to ensure that it is suitable, and if you rent, they will also interview your landlord. If you lie to them about your stance on guns and they find out, they claim that they will sue you for fraud. They are meddling, nosy cunts. I wouldn’t want to buy a dog collar from their store.
They are a 503(c) tax exempt organization. It is illegal under IRS regulations to engage in or advocate for a political cause as a tax exempt. Not that the IRS ever enforces the law against liberals. They are also getting killed on yelp. https://www.yelp.com/biz/shelter-hope-pet-shop-thousand-oaks
My response to him, which is what evidently triggered the subsequent hyperventilation - and probably one of the most innocuous things I've ever posted - was as follows:
I suspect their monthly fire insurance premiums are about to exceed their annual income.
Whereupon blog admin awa evidently lost his grip on reality:
This is not a discussion. This is not an argument. This is a statement from one of the blog admins.
This sort of comment is not acceptable. The implication that part of this community would commit arson is not acceptable.
Don’t do it. We don’t allow physical threats, we don’t allow implied threats, we don’t bad mouth the community as a whole.
Then circled the wagons, and doubled down. (I.e. "Let's form a circular firing squad, and call Aesop a dick, and see how that works out.")
Uh huh. Not getting enough attention, are you?
Part of this community???
Where in blistering Hell are you pulling that "inference" from?
I neither said that outright, nor implied that, unless you're ascertaining that inference by seance.
If you're butthurt by the reality that there are people out in the big wide world (which is what I did say) who will likely do something illegal or immoral, that's entirely your free choice.
Considering random incident-of-violence videos demonstrating exactly that phenomenon are routinely posted [at GFZ] (I passed at least two such between today and this old post [I was wrong, there are at least two more I forgot about. -A.]), that seems a little silly, but it's your choice, and it's a free country. You can be as silly as you'd like.
Saying what I said is not "being a dick". It's breathing oxygen, and having open eyes.
Why post the story at all, if you think everyone in Creation is just going to yawn and say "Tsk. Tsk."?
Criminal and/or crazy people are absolutely going to make ridiculous threats, sure as the sun rises every morning.
That's how we know they're criminals and crazies.
Insurance agents and companies are going to note those realities when assessing policy premiums.
It's what they do.
That is exactly what I said: no more, and no less.
So now noting the obvious, that 2+2=4 is "unacceptable"?
Noted, Mr. O'Brien. Big Brother is watching.
(George Orwell would like you to call his office.)
I'm not advocating for any such illegal response.
I'm certainly not going to do it myself, nor would I advise nor incite anyone else to do so.
(And unlike 98% of the nonsense covered here, that shop is actually well within a tank of gas from where I'm sitting. Just like it is for about 25,000,000 other people.)
Saying "X is likely to happen, because human nature" is a simple statement of reality.
To suggest that observing the facts of actual human nature in the real world, and stating those realities is "unacceptable", is quite simply asinine.
Do what you like with this comment, and the original one.
But don't put words in my mouth nor impute motives to me based on someone's wildest imagination, and absolutely nothing I said nor implied.
That's what ABCNNBCBS are for.
But if you - or anyone else - seriously think no one is going to do any such thing as what I suggested will happen, I'd love to hear an exposition of the thinking behind that opinion.
No, really.
I don't think anyone who reads Gun Free Zone is going to run right out and burn down some asshole's pet shop. I'm not going to do it. And I would counsel anyone from doing it as well. Nor did I say that. Nor, in even a fever-brained analysis beyond the bounds of sanity, could it be inferred. Not even with a dowsing rod and a ouija board.
 |
| Word to your mother, yo. |
But I get paid fabulous sums of money to babysit the exact lunatics in question who will do exactly that, and more. And their real-world actions have real-world consequences. Including higher insurance premiums.
So when you go waving a rhetorical lightning rod around in a thunderstorm, like the pet shop owner in the OP, it's going to bite you in your ass. That's all - and exactly what - I said, and awa and anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature in a igloo knew that before they went shark-surfing on this topic.
Hyperventilate all you want.
But get a grip on reality. And stop pulling recockulous inferences from out of your underpants, and trying to pin them on other people. If noting that Some Asshole's going to receive karmic payback for their idiotic actions is imputing the motive to do so to the gun community, then posting articles like "Get a CCW, and keep your head on a swivel" is telling people to go hunting and killing people.
That's the exact argument being made about my post response(s), and exactly how fucktardedly recockulous it is to say you can psychically "infer" I was suggesting any community (other than crooks and crazies) are going to do something illegal and heinous.
(If you're defending that "community", you're on your own.)
The word for that in the trade is projection, and when last I looked, the DSM-5 identifies it as a symptom of delusional thinking.
Don't imagine you can read my mind based on things not said, and I won't do the same thing to you either.
That would seem to be the sort of common sense most of us learned in our formative years, but some people may have been sick that day in school.
Don't be that guy. Please.
ZFG regarding any butthurt this, or the original responses, caused. Wield your banhammer with glee, if that's how you want to get off. But life's gonna be hard if you don't pull up your Big Boy pants, and deal with Reality as it is, instead of wetting your pants because you imagined someone said something that offends your tender sensibilities, purely from the depths of your own tortured illogic. I hold no brief to catering to delusional behavior. Neither should anyone else. Start doing that, and the next thing you know, people will be criminally charged for using the wrong pronouns, which even courts in Califrutopia threw out as a First Amendment violation. So don't be crazier than that.
If you're blogging for psychotherapy, there are people trained for that, but they charge by the hour.
What isn't so, isn't so.
And BTW, and not for nothing: Standards are a fine thing. Except the Double kind. I mention that because calling someone out for "being a dick" in two separate posts violates your own Rule Three. Oops.
I own what I write.
Own what you write.
I didn't take any pot-shots at you or anyone on GFZ when I posted, and I don't think it's beyond reasonable to expect no less courtesy in return.
Maybe even have a chat with a Vietnam-era vet about the origin of the radio call "Receiving friendly fire, returning same with a smile..."
There are a lot of decaffeinated brands out there that are just as tasty as the real thing...
So, did you really want to talk about the weather, or...?
Seance?
So this is simply wholesale cost-free virtue-signalling.
QED
BTW, Thousand Oaks is in Ventura County. It’s a very pricey L.A. County-adjacent suburban neighborhood, plus consistently one of the Top Ten “Safest Cities In America” for as long as anyone has kept track.
I’m guessing that pet shop would like to change that.
You have to wonder how long before they experience a totally random BLM attack on their establishment, with no witnesses.
Might drive ’em right out of business there, and scuttling back to almost-no-gun-shops-within-city-limits Los Angeles.
Boo frickin’ hoo.