Here are two contrasting articles from the Guardian:
Watching porn in public is not OK. It’s harassment – Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett
Pussy Riot celebrate the vagina in lyrical riposte to Trump – Luke Harding
It is no discredit to the Guardian that different writers for the paper have said contradictory things, although none of the dozens of comments I read to Ms Cosslett’s article brought up the the difference between the views of old and new feminists on whether it was liberating or deplorable to shock the public.
Many Libertarian-ish people would say that incompatible preferences across different groups of people regarding what should be seen in public could be solved by property rights and competition. Each shopping mall and bus company could set its own rules, some catering to the puritans, some to the libertines. That would be nice, but until we find the door into Libertopia we must deal with the major regulator of such things being the State.
What do you think? How should people behave here and now? Do the existing laws come first or ten millionth on our list of things to oppose – or should we support them? Is there more of a problem than there used to be, now that people can watch R18 movies on their Kindles on the bus while a twelve year old sits next to them? Or is this just another moral panic that could be solved if people kept their eyes to themselves?
By the way, consider this blog post to be a a venue where, as they say on the cinema screens, “Strong language may be permitted, depending on the manner in which it is used, who is using the language, its frequency within the work as a whole and any special contextual justification”.
Public display of sexuality, nudity, explicit sexual behaviour right on up to bestiality in public on stage at the opera house is good or bad depending on your intentions.
If you intend the display to espouse or support a tenet of leftism in any of its ten thousand points of darkness, then the display is good.
If you intend simply to be a horndog, then the display is very bad, especially if you are a white male and doubly bad if you supported Brexit or Trump.
‘Harassment’, my ass. This is now the catch-all term for ‘anything I don’t like’. Don’t like it? Don’t look. And – by the way – if we’re talking about a sense of entitlement, let’s talk about your apparent sense of entitlement to look at the screens of other people’s devices. Mind your own damned business.
On a legal plane – show me the harm. Show me whose pocket was picked, or whose leg was broken. No harm – no foul, and you don’t get to call the cops simply because you saw something that offended you. Nobody forced you to look at his screen.
Is it skeevy, creepy and generally Low-Rent to look at pr*n while riding the bus? Sure is. Keep it to yourself. But it’s nothing to call the cops over. The world is full of skeevy stuff. Deal with it.
On a plane of thought – Ms Cosslett needs to apply a thought process to her suggestion that I often find to be helpful and sometimes very illuminating – if the (law/rule/regulation) I want to have applied to this horrible behavior were actually to come to pass, exactly in the way that I would want it to – how could my worst enemy use it against me?
llater,
llamas
If I were to be stuck on an airplane for 8 hours next to someone who wanted to watch porn, I don’t think I would object unless he (always a “he”) didn’t want to use earphones. I don’t particularly like slasher movies or similar genres, but I can’t say that I could argue that the person sitting next to me should not be able to watch them. I think that many of the movies on airplanes are pretty violent. So how can I object to movies of people having fun and enjoying one another?
Now, if it happened to be bad porn, I might object…
But that would apply to anything, not just porn. I do not even want the collected wisdom of F.A.Hayek being blasted out of tinny speakers whilst I am trying to chill.
But do you really think they’re saying anything contradictory?
Ms. Cosslett’s view speaks of basic everyday porn, in which women are generally degraded and devalued down to the level of “receptacle.” Basic everyday porn – i.e., hetero, involving no latex handcuffs or non-human anatomy or plot – has always been known to appeal to males more so than females, because it satisfies male desires and fantasies more so than female ones.
Ms. Cosslett’s point is that this basic type of porn trains men to think of the real women surrounding them in the same terms that the porn presents its women – i.e., single-purpose possessors of fun parts which can make us feel good. Such a view, over time, leads to a general degradation in how society values women.
Accordingly, says Ms. Cosslett, to place that porn out in the open where women and girls can see that it attracts an audience leads those women and girls to take on to themselves the degraded self-worth that the porn ascribes to them.
Mr. Harding, on the other hand, speaks of a presentation of sexual anatomical differences in a way that attempts to counter that exact degraded self-worth that society tends to impose on females. Just as Black Power was a response to a society that devalued blacks, Pussy Power throws pussies right back at people who think poorly of them.
I see no contradiction. One seeks to stop the degradation of women qua women, the other seeks to buttress female gender-pride.
As a libertarian, I’d rather that Ms. Cosslett’s plea for yet another public rule be ignored in favor of loud and rude reaction to people viewing porn where kids can see it. But I can’t easily dismiss the complaint behind it. Several of my kids have penises, and I had to make it clear to them that the world that porn presents doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t exist, and to maybe consider that the film producers were saying how the world ought to treat their sister. I could see their expressions change when I put it that way.
I agree with llamas. There are other grounds for objecting to viewing of pornography in public places where others cannot help but see it. Unfortunately, in the last 50 years the Left has serially discredited such grounds because their application ultimately depended on subjective male judgment. In the last 10 years, women have succeeded in turning “harassment” into the “public lewdness” or “indecency” of half a century ago. The only difference is that now the standard is owned and applied by women using their subjective judgment, which makes it OK to the Left.
Sorry to sound like a statist, but I don’t agree. Obviously if the organization is private they can set whatever rules they like (on the aforementioned aircraft for example), but if we are going to have public transport and public spaces in general then the owner of that space does have a right to set reasonable standards. I wouldn’t want people actually having sex on a bus seat next to me any more than I want their flickering screen full of bouncing booties to demand my eyes.
So, sure, if some guy is sitting next to me whacking off to porn I could avert my eyes, and to me that is not qualitatively different than him watching the porn and keeping his hands “above the covers.” But I still think it is perfectly reasonable to demand that in a public space public standards of decency be required. Argue against public spaces if you will, but insofar as they exist, some sort of reasonable expectation of decency doesn’t seem out of bounds to me.
And if you don’t like it, start your own bus company.
@bobby b “…Such a view, over time, leads to a general degradation in how society values women.”
I politely disagree. It is a slippery slope to say that art creates society, and so to get the society we want, we need to legally constrain art. Men and women of all LGBTETC are potential sources of pleasure to each other, and the objectification or nonobjectification thereof is not the function of the state. Shielding children is a sticky wicket, but the parental lesson given about “how the world ought to treat their sister” is certainly a terrific one, and should IMHO be the means whereby such forces that ultimately shape the “public space” of society are handled. If “degrading” is your threshold for state action, then be prepared for llamas’ warning, that it might be used against you.
Myno, I don’t want state action to enforce any of this.
But I will always attempt to privately uphold my own morals, provincial though they may be. I’m a fan of loud, rude public shaming. I prefer that to calling in the police on what is – or should be – a matter of politeness rather than law.
Outraging public decency is a Common Law offence in England, and it carries a maximum life sentence.
The courts may well find that the offence is made out by watching porn in public, not merely physical actions, but there must be 2 people present other than the perp(s).
Of ourse, this is judge-made law, not a statute. The State may enforce the law, but the Crown’s judges have found it.
In Great Britain, watching porn at work may amount to a statutory tort of harassment of a colleague, on the ground of sex, with unlimited damages coming into play.
I am confused about these issues, but, as a father of two girls, bobby b’s comments resonated strongly.
In response to Myno, I think “politics is downstream from culture” and so …maybe not.
No, wait. I’ve got it!
Feminists can have it both ways:
It’s bad if you enjoy it!
That’s an assumption for which I’ve never seen any evidence.
It’s bad if men enjoy it.
Basically, there are many ways to watch porn, or listen to music. It’s my opinion that the bass-emanating Thumpmobiles driving down the street play their music that loud and low because they to some extent intend to annoy everybody else. (I await a decent explanation of other reasons.)
Similarly – is that person watching the pr0n playing it for (him)self, or playing it at me? In that case, think of it as exhibitionism or an obscene phone call you cannot easily hang up.
Before performing a Public Shaming, compare your size and fitness to that of the other person. And don’t go bothering the cops, because you may find they are just as annoying as the pr0n.
I can’t believe anybody thinks it’s acceptable to play porn in a public space.
There is nothing wrong with porn per se, just as there is nothing wrong with sex, music, or food. It’s just there is a place and time for everything: there is a reason why we don’t eat or listen to loud music in libraries, or have sex in churches. Somewhat similarly, to me it is a no-brainer that public tranport is not a place to watch porn – but YMMV.
This state of affairs is precisely what leads some people to think that anything not prohibited by law or regulation must be OK. And no, we must not deal with the State by cooperating with it, unless literally forced to – demanding that the State do something about every damned thing we happen to dislike does not answer that description, and it only reinforces that sorry state of affairs Natalie described and I quoted.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a state-owned bus in the UK, if ever. Do they have them in London? London is different from the rest of the UK after all.
All the buses in the South East are privately owned, I believe they “win franchises” from the local authority but they are privately owned and the terms and conditions of carriage are set by the owners.
“until we find the door into Libertopia we must deal with the major regulator of such things being the State.”
And when the state regulates, one size fits all. While this situation lasts, I would rather that one size that must fit all (some badly, of course) represented a real majority of voters than an entrenched left-wing ‘elite’ pushing an agenda. We can argue all we like what would be the ideal ‘best single size’, but while it remains ‘one size’, any minuscule influence I might ever have will be to push away from the left’s agenda toward the majority.
I’m more interested in freedom from the hate speech laws than freedom either to watch smut or not to accidentally encounter it.
There are indeed many things which can “be solved by property rights and competition,” but there are even more which can be solved by the application of simple courtesy. This is one of them. It is simply rude to engage in conduct (be it watching porn, or listening to loud music, or other forms) in a public place where others might be offended by it. And while I personally take a very relaxed view toward porn (and I disagree with bobby b’s comment; as Eric said there is simply no evidence to support it), I accept that some people find it offensive either for themselves or for their children. And that is entirely legitimate.
It shouldn’t be necessary for the state to intrude here, were common courtesy to be generally applied. Unfortunately, common courtesy seems to be in very short supply these days; certainly it isn’t “common” any more. And one of the few legitimate functions of the state is protection of the citizens from external depredation, whether that be from foreign enemies, domestic criminals, or (in this case) cretins acting deplorably in public places. So it may not be very libertarian of me, but I would support a statutory prohibition on watching porn on the bus. (A private setting is entirely different, of course.) Just as with loud music you can’t “avert” your ears, in a cramped bus it’s not always possible to avert your eyes. And of course you often can’t keep your children from watching that which you don’t want them to see, especially if they’re riding alone. Ban it.
Lot of good discussion here.
Ms Cosslett’s beef is, of course, with men and what men might like. That much leaps out from her pearl-clutching descriptions.
However, I’ve been told that tastes in this area run the gamut, and that there are as many varieties of this product as there are human minds. So what happens when somebody is found to be watching something that is most definitely pr*n, but which does not match her definitions, which seem to be based in some sort of pomo theory about being degrading to women. What if it is pr*n made by and for women, for example. Is she going to have some sendible-shoe wearing bus passenger arrested for viewing material which does not degrade women in any way?
I think not, because this faux outrage about a vanishingly-rare non-issue has very little to do with any real problem. It’s just another opportunity to demean and vilify all men and to devalue and delegitimize what men like. Social forces and social solutions can address this problem if/when it actually arises. Ms Cosslett is just sad and angry that things she doesn’t like won’t go away in spite of her dislike – why doesn’t everyone have the exact-same opinion as me? – and so she seeks, as all fascists do, to deploy the power of the state to suppress behaviours which do no real harm, but just happen to offend her. And to create a giant fuss about her particular hobby-horse, and blow it out of all proportion.
Women and girls are being actually attacked and actually abused and actually degraded all across Europe by members of an invading barbarian horde – but no, the real issue she chooses to go after is some loser watching skin flicks on the bus. Idiot.
llater,
llamas
Here’s an idea- can’t someone invent a special screen which broadcasts radio, which someone with special glasses sees as colour? You could be watching your favourite show on the train, and other people without the glasses only see a black screen. Come to that, you could do business privately, with other people not privy to your deals. I know we have wrap-around specs, but I want something where you can see normally, but also can see whatever is on your screen. If doable, that would solve the privacy issue.
I’m seeing a trend developing here that tells me I’ve not explained something well.
1. I agree with what llamas said at 7:50.
2. In my comment at 8:34, I was setting out what I saw as Ms. Cosslett’s viewpoint, and then comparing it to Mr. Harding’s viewpoint, in order to show that there was no contradiction between them.
3. I believe that this controversy (to the extent there is one) ought to be resolved through civility, not through state action.
4. Ever since Perry introduced me to tentacle porn several months ago, I can barely get any work done. Damn him.
I do believe that porn can interfere with the development of a healthy attitude towards sex in young people – but that’s an issue to be dealt with by the parents of those young people, not by legislatures.
Eric
Feminists can have it both ways:
It’s bad if you enjoy it!
It’s bad if men enjoy it.
Original argument against porn, from Christians and old style feminists was that porn would turn men into unstoppable rape machines.
This obviously hadn’t happened, so the latest argument is that porn is so good that men have no interest in real women. 😛
I see – so porn is good if it has a political message, or attacks religion (another hobby of “Pussy Riot” – invading churches and disrupting services, and NO I am not a Putin fan).
But if porn does not have a political message it is bad.
So if there was a pornographic attack on, say, the National Health Service the Guardian would think it was good?
Or does the political message of porn have to be leftist?
Read the line above as not about porn, but as the words of a Muslim male decrying the sight of visible women. “It”, in that case, means unveiled, uncovered women.
Still want to ban it?
This seems like a good time for a “… but do you feel sufficiently strongly about $perceived-ill that you’d be willing to kill somebody over it?” comment.
There are lots of things that I don’t like (Ellen’s twats in cars being high on the list) but I don’t generally call for men with guns to enforce my preferences on everybody else.
Would I watch porn on the bus? Fuck no, that would be a dick move. But passing a law that could, quite conceivably, lead to the tit in question losing his (or her, but it’s clear that Cosslett intends that it only be “his”) life seems somewhat extreme.
I agree watching porn in public is at least very rude. But what the feminists are really after here is the power to ban pornography entirely. If viewing porn in public becomes explicitly illegal, watch for the definition of porn to become very expansive in the same way the definitions of “harassment”, “rape”, and “hate crime” did.
Since the O.P. is about one example of trying to fit reality into libertarian theory, and having been DENOUNCED ! as an “Epstein phreak” just a day or two ago by bobby b — and doesn’t HE have a nerve, being one himself by his own slightly more genteel admission,
I invite everyone who hasn’t heard it yet, to listen to Richard discussing “Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Lochner” with Russ Roberts. Basically, Prof. Epstein explains what he thinks is the fundamental difference in outlook between Classical Liberals and “hard-line libertarians.” Along the way he discusses Lochner, what various Justices have done with various cases presented to the Supremes, and some issues of which I think “Porn on a Bus” is an example, since the real issue is what, if anything, the legal system should do about such stuff, from a practical point of view. (Can this Libertopia be saved?)
You can listen on-line or download the .mp3 file at
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/03/richard_epstein_2.html . ~ 69 minutes.
other rob,
You have a good example there, when you write,
Without any desire whatsoever for the legal system to involve itself with said twats’ extremely rude and inconsiderate behaviour (although I think in many jurisdictions it breaks the laws covering nuisance, although I tend to find nuisance laws in general highly debatable), I will point out that the twats do in fact manage to enforce their preferences on everybody else, simply because nobody stops them.
I’d like to stop them. By demolishing their audio systems and their empty heads with brickbats, enthusiastically wielded by me and slew of other like-minded folks.
At least The Gov wouldn’t be involved.
Julie: We must each make our own determination as to whether violence has been offered, before deciding whether to respond with violence of our own. It bears noting that a blow with a bat can be just as fatal as a shot from a gun.
Speaking of which (and staying in character, as I would appear to have hitherto been too subtle) one reason that I don’t call for men with guns is that I typically carry my own. I am not, however, in he habit of getting it out and waving it around while demanding that people marvel at its magnificence. And, while the BBC might consider it to be huge, I regard it as average, though I must acknowledge that the double stack mag permits it to deliver a very heavy load.
Anyone who objects to being made aware that the guy sitting next to them is watching porn, or reading The Wealth of Nations or The Failure of Feminism or Mein Kampf or SF by Baen Books can get stuffed. They deserve to be pointed and laughed at for accusing the guy of WrongFun ThoughtCrime.
If they’re forced to share in the material they find objectionable, then that’s a less easy and less simple question. The old “if you don’t like it, you don’t have to look” is a perfectly good answer as long as not-looking is a reasonable possibility. My tentative thought is that stuff displayed in public should not cross the “Not Safe For Work” line. But I’m not sure if that’s the right answer.
Agree with Laird (and I have two girls – and four sisters). Men can both consider women as of sexual interest and respect them in some other capacity (e.g. as a fantastic accountant or whatever). Call it double think if you wish. “Objectification”, not a term that I find very useful, is obviously intrinsic to sexual relations -you don’t find somebody attractive because they are, say, a great accountant (well, you might, but then you are crazy and probably need to be escorted back to Theresa May’s Brexit advisory council)
On the porn-on-the-bus issue – I agree it is rude.
But would also be rude to, say, watch on the BBC-ITV-or Channel Four “documentaries” that present Donald Trump as a Nazi space alien who eats babies.
Indeed it would be rude to watch a conservative television station – accept that that there are no conservative television stations in Britain, only leftist ones. The Conservative party government of 1979 to 1997 did nothing to change that (indeed it created the leftist Channel Four – as an “alternative” to the existing leftist channels) and the Conservative Party government that has been in office since 2010 has not and is not going to do anything about it either.
This is relevant because the left declare that the endless Frankfurt School propaganda of the BBC, ITV, Channel Four (and so on) is “objective and unbiased” – so imagine what their definition of “porn” would be.
Essentially the left would declare anything they did not like “porn” and would ban it – whatever the company that owned the busses wanted to do.
Really enjoying this discussion. Politeness would dictate not watching porn on the bus (if anyone ever does) and justification of state involvement hinges on whether public “property” has the same “their gaff, their rules” justification as private property.
With regards to “objectification” around pornography I find it an odd term. Name an object that you are sexually attracted to. Also not convinced that there is evidence to suggest damage to male psychology/perception of sex and women from pornography. As PeterT says: double-think or compartmentalization do exist with regards to sex for men: we can simultaneously be turned on etc. over these sorts of robotic pornographic videos but also understand that the people involved are, well, people…
And pornography targeted towards women (videos, not books like 50 shades), which I have watched out of interest, does not seem as different to me as I was led to believe. Not sure if there can be meaningful sweeping distinctions made in terms of e.g. banning porn whose target audience is men versus porn whose target audience is women. Note: not saying that anyone here would want to make this distinction, just commenting in response to the apparent perception of the writers of the Guardian pieces.
“in a public space public standards of decency [ought to] be required.”
Seems to me this is the central point.
Nowadays, there are no standards of public decency; or if there are, large numbers of people take it as their “right” to go out of their way to outrage said decency.
Start by ridiculing Mary Whitehouse, and you end with porn on the bus.
An item on this, of doubtful veracity; does anybody else know? I read somewhere that Nixon stood-up a commission to study pr0n in America while he was President. His unstated desire was the conclusion that pr0n encourages men to become r@pe-machines, child-m0lesters &c so he’d have an excuse to crack-down on the industry, and he was quite put-out when they determined that pr0n has the opposite effect – men with sick fantasies tend to indulge them with a $5 magazine at home if they can, rather than try to accost hapless victims at-large. When Reagan took office, he also stood-up a commission to study the same matter; only I imagine he was aware of Nixon’s effort, because he cherry-picked his commissioners with a bit more focus, and they returned the conclusion he desired.
As not-quite confirmation I suppose, I visited Denmark some time after they legalised pr0n, and discussed it with a local. As soon as Denmark did this, there was an eruption – pr0n shops opened in profusion, 3 on every block. Six months later, the public was sated and the pr0n shops were all gone, the few remaining catered ~exclusively to tourists.
Sorta’ like the Japanese and their manga, most men know that no, real women in the real world aren’t like that – but I suspect feminists will continue to attack pr0n, just as they’ll continue attacking everything else men enjoy.
I bet. Scarred for life.
‘Start by ridiculing Mary Whitehouse, and you end with porn on the bus.’
Nominate for SQOTD.
Mrs Whitehouse was a slightly-dotty eccentric of the kind that only the UK produces, and she had some strange fixations. She also attracted a rather nasty set of associates, which she should have vetted more-carefully. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
To be clear, what Mrs Whitehouse mostly worked for was to support the kind of social climate that would make watching pr*n on the bus an unspeakably improper and unacceptable thing to do. She didn’t go to law very much, and she usually lost when she did, as is proper. The law is the wrong venue for issues of this sort.
llater,
llamas
Here’s an argument. Watching porn in a public space is sexual assault. The only reason to watch porn in a public space is to force others to participate in a sexual act. It is exclusively a form of exhibitionism.
Is Pussy Riot exclusively an exhibitionist troupe?
If you think exhibitionism is a-ok, never mind.
“everyday porn, in which women are generally degraded and devalued” Maybe every day crap porn, bobby b. Does Ms Cosslett make any disticntions? There is some quite good porn, these days, and I’m not just talking about Rule 34 stuff. Look at Hegre, Abby Winters, I Feel Myself, and various amateur, loving couples who get it on on the Internet. Really quite non-degrading.
other rob,
Apparently my own sensayuma is too subtle. As it happens I am currently short in my brickbat supply, so even the disturbers of the peace who enjoy blasting their boomers at one and all on the public streets have nothing to fear from me, save only dire imprecations.
Or perhaps I’ve missed your own subtlety?
. . .
bobby,
As long as I’m Explaining Myself, I do hope it was clear to you that the “DENOUNCED !” was just me being funny. (Actually, I got a kick out of the “Epstein phreak” remark. 😀 )
Julie – I didn’t think that you really meant it, but it was an excuse for me to channel Frankie Howerd.
Can’t have a discussion on porn without a bit of Frankie Howerd.
“If she didn’t want to watch me masturbate, she shouldn’t have sat next to me on the bus.”
Apply this to the guy who watches porn on his phone while sitting next to a woman or small child, and all becomes clear.
And I don’t want to hear some shit about “video isn’t the same as action” — because it is.
Oh, gosh, yes, I got it. You’ll never see a Trumpist claim the mantle of “denounced” proudly, but us Epsteinists are used to having to beat others to the punch. 😀
All the comments about porn and women (here, and almost everywhere else) sound as if there is no such thing as male gay porn.
Indeed.
Kim du Toit wrote :’“If she didn’t want to watch me masturbate, she shouldn’t have sat next to me on the bus.”
Apply this to the guy who watches porn on his phone while sitting next to a woman or small child, and all becomes clear.
And I don’t want to hear some shit about “video isn’t the same as action” — because it is.’
It’s not a very good analogy. ‘Action’ is really unavoidable, where video may be – probably is.
But, leaving that aside, what do you propose to do about ‘the guy who watches pr*n on his phone while sitting next to a woman or a small child.’? All does not quite become clear. Do you propose that we should be able to call the cops and have him hauled away?
If so, how is this different from the mutaween, who haul away a woman who is not ‘sufficiently’ covered, because she is ‘offensive’ and ‘outrageous’ to local sensibilities? Where do you draw the line? The author of the column is all up about herself when it’s about pr*n that ‘degrades’ women, according to her – but the list of things that some people find ‘offensive’, and would like to have banned with the force of law, is endless.
Once again, this is not a proper venue for the law to be involved.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating offensive behavior like this. Creepy, skeevy and generally Low Rent. But don’t get the state involved – the cure is worse than the disease.
llater,
llamas
other rob,
Thanks for the clarification … all is now hotsy-totsy. Only, who the heck is Frankie Howard?
. . .
bobby,
That’s what I took for granted, until my even, contented temperament was capsized by a wave of insecurity. (I’m running on a platform of Better Tankers! — ones where the front doesn’t fall off.) ;>)
As for us Epstein Phreaks, one must agree with your point. *g*
rob: Oh.
I think that now I gets it (save only Frankie-Who-He?).
Marbles all lost some time ago….
Sadly, when you take a slot where you know for a fact that various people of higher rank than your own are going to be made familiar on a daily basis with where your computers have been, you lose interest in exploring whole genres of the internet.
Meaning, of course, that my last real involvement in internet porn occurred back when the only porn available was everyday crap porn. If there are better, less degrading forms of it now, then I should specify that I was indeed speaking of everyday crap porn.
“… what do you propose to do about ‘the guy who watches pr*n on his phone while sitting next to a woman or a small child?’”
I would scream into his ear, as loudly as I could, “YOU RUDE BASTARD! TURN THAT FUCKING SHIT OFF!” In other words, I would assault him verbally, just as he is assaulting other passengers visually. (I was a drill instructor once, in another life. I have a REALLY loud voice.)
Actually, there is no conditional tense there because I HAVE done precisely that. Several years ago I saw some shithead sitting next to a young girl (about 19), while reading a Penthouse magazine on a crowded Chicago commuter train. He looked at me, ignored me, and carried on reading. So I pulled it out of his hands, ripped it up and threw it out of the window, to the loud applause of the people around me.
Nothing more happened, except the little shit got out at the next stop. Bring that forward into the modern day, and his phone would go flying too.
I am SO fucking SICK of the permissive society and the rudeness it has engendered.
Kim du Toit – and the sad thing is, he’d have the law on you. Especially in Chicago, where the police can’t deal with out-of-control gang murders, but oh BOY! can they go after ordinary people who don’t pose a threat to them…
Civil society in action. As a roofer I know once put it to a young and foolish builder, “be polite around my Misses as a kick in the bollocks often offends.”
“…the sad thing is, he’d have the law on you.”
Don’t care. I’m sick of the cops fucking with decent people as well. And as for “can they go after ordinary people who don’t pose a threat to them…”, we’ll see about that last phrase.
I’m old, I’m cranky, I have little to lose, and I’m really well-armed. I always said if I had to choose my manner of death, it would be in my wife’s arms or on the barricades. Well, the first isn’t going to happen now, so it might as well be the second. A bas les flics.
Kim, I’m sitting here watching the artillery salute after Trump was sworn in.
It has to help things to know that the views that you’ve always espoused have a higher chance of prevailing after today than they have over the last twenty years. I, too, am old and cranky and well-armed, and I’m more optimistic than I’ve been in a while that we might leave this place in no worse condition than when we got it.
Bobby, from your mouth to Trump’s ear. I’m looking for a vast improvement, but I’ll settle for an improvement over the past decade.