regevdl

That's terrible that they used their energy to laugh and feel superior rather than try to articulate their position with actual arguments. I have gone back and forth with myself on voting. I don't think it's immoral however the campaign, election process makes my stomach churn so does my vote enable that, etc....those sort of conundrums. But... heard Tom Woods (he also has a podcast and is sharp as a whip on economics) say that if he was in a concentration camp and was given a vote to change the guards or get out or somehow improve the conditions...he would. So there is a lot to be said but I think voting can be beneficial. I live in a small self-governed village and our local parliment is voluntary. You can nominate yourself and the community votes. no one gets paid for their position...although people still use the power to benefit themselves...so that doesn't go away even in a small scale voluntary society. But you don't have to pay overhead and pensions for these people and you can always run against them. But when it gets to big centralized planning elections and campaigns..it's a whole other monster we are dealing with. However, to some extent the game is rigged. That is provable and evident. however, especially in this election, I find it uniquely exciting and worthy to vote because the votes ARE what's exposing the corruption and bias and rigging in the system. Which is a VERY useful tool, voting, in this case. It might be the first domino in a long line of dominos to break down the entire methodology of society and decision making and choosing leaders, etc but.... I think it's a necessary step.

Trump addresses ILLEGAL immigration... not legal immigration. The Chinese immigrants are predominately legal and take FAR less welfare and fair higher in wages. And Illegal Immigration, the term, is a misnomer in that immigration is a word used for legal entry into a politcal state. Illegal is...well...illegal. So the two are contradictory. One who enters illegaly is not an immigrant thus the two words are used in politics to create emotional response and cognitive dissoance. Please read/listen to STeve Cammarota who is the leading researching in immigration studies and has testified to congress on immigration facts and then come back and use the 'Chinese Immigrant' argument I noticed a lot of the leftist media is now pushing this but they are once again, moving the conversation to legal immigration and not distinguishing it on the topic of ILLEGAL entry/immigration to which is Trump's main focus and justifiably so.

It is interesting an subtle sophistry he uses in that he does correctly and justifiably push back on media. So tear down media and replace with what..... 'theater and humor'? That is where Stewart fails..he cashes in on comedy but claims 'he would love to see debates' ...and you asked the perfect question. so why didn't he do a debate show and all of his clones that got their start on his show, Colbert, Oliver etc could have easily followed suit and also done debate shows. So he deflects his own responsibility as he calls out media. That was very revealing. Thanks for sharing btw.

My kids are in public school. The country we are in it's virtually impossible to homeschool but I supplement with homeschooling and during the summer. I bring that up to mention my advice is not based on some state-approved method or curriculum but I would recomment Ron Paul's home-schooling. I also have bought the books What Happened to Penny Candy Liberty Island Capitalism for Kids During the summer I have a curriculum to sit wit them in the morning to help them with their English, do some art and creativity/science (best in the morning hours), so some physical exercise...learning gymnastics/baseball etc and one other subject changes daily and then the rest of the afternoon they have to do whatever they like. So it's from like 9a-12p ideally but that's just for 2 kids aged 7 and 9.

I'm surprised/not surprised but it made me cry and feel the deep pain in my childhood. My parents both worked from home, I was not in daycare but spent so many hours alone.....I felt totally abandoned with my other 20 feet away. It's left some deep deep scars.... Very powerful depiction here.

there are a few and I pushed back on them.... lol Come join me will you? :-P well and if she wants to mention scientists who were spanked how about the 99.99% of prison inmate who were spanked and/or worse.... convenciently left out of the framework.

The only problem is there is too much 'comedy' on serious issues. how many shows like the Daily Show and such that lure in the young, impressionable minds...probably already in indocrination camps referred to as public schooling and make 'news' entertaining but with a twist. And then when you interact with them in a rational, critical thinking tone they get all 'bored'. I had someone actually defend John Oliver as factual news and when someone made a few bullet points debunking they mocked the person as being 'boring' and 'un entertaining' at presenting facts and a hack and such. I was dumbstruck. Unless it's spoonfed as entertainment and toeing the line of truth/conjecture...the kids are interseted or inspired and the flashier, sexier and funnier it is, the harder it is to give them the information in a more realistic, raw data, serious way to get them motivated enough to actually give a ****. When it's funny they become apathetic after the endorphine hit of laughter. So sorry....just because we don't want to call this comedy is not our shortcoming...it's hers for using her sex appeal and 'comedy' and popularity to talk about this in a failed comedic way. Why not get serious for a moment to get the message across. it's like a tactic I told my son. He sometimes gets in these bouts of using sarcasm with his younger sister who han'st really gotten the concept of sarcasm. She still takes things literal and I encourage that! So I told my son you can't joke with her all the time and then suddenly be serious and be surprised when she doesn't take you seriously. it's better to be serious most of the time and then if you aren't serious be a bit more obvious so she'll notice the difference. It will catch her attention more. So if she usually does comedy and has conditioned her audience to expect comedy and cynicism then ONE video where she is stone cold serious could do FAR more good but this will only feed into people's confirmation bias with her ambigiuty and frankly the media airwaves are oversaturated with ambiguity and cynicism and sarcasm and no wonder why people freak out when someone speaks about these issues in a dead serious tone.

I often do have discussions with people This was more of a succinct illustration of how to effectively (not always of course. lol) to reply to some of the common issues that come up within the discussion. It's certainly not a driveby situation. Just sort of excerpts of what I have personally found repeated in many converstaion on Bernie or the issue of socialism as a whole and sort of refined my responses to them. Thanks. I used to post a lot of videos and links on FB and other media sites back in the last election regarding Ron Paul and personally (maybe it's provided more fruitful output for you) but personally...looking back....it didn't amount to beans. Especially on FB where most comments are common rhetoric platititudes I simply came up with or attempted to (with the help of Stefan's podcasts) very compact, short rebuttals to then engage people further online or offline in some cases where discussions can be more lengthy and open reducing the win-lose aspect of FB for example. I challenged myself to not post videos or news articles for 1 year and try to reach out to people and get them to become interested in what I am saying and actually it has worked FAR better when I post 'notes' that are quite lengthy or daily posts on particular issues that are more than a paragraph. It takes people time to get used to an dmotivated to read because the internet and MSM has conditioned them to tire out after 20 words. lol So don't be afraid to use your own words rather than posting his videos. I mean it's great o share his content but I look at it as...when I am in a discussion and someone 'replies' with a video or article I see it as a big turnoff. I imagine if we were standing in person with each other and I made an argument and their rebuttal was pulling a stranger off the street , shoving them in my face and saying 'listen to him!~'. It would be offputting, so I treat internet discussions teh same way. When people post videos or articles as a 'rebuttal' I simply ask them if there is anyway they can put the case in their OWN words as I chose to speak with THEM afterall. some walk away and some take me up on that request which become interesting conversatons. So even if it's content I am partial to, I always try to get the person to express it in their own words.

This is just sharing some recent reflections from some experiences over the past year or so... of course any feedback is welcome. I have been using Peaceful Parenting with my children from day one. I didn't know there was a name for it. They were both born at home so I was already in the 'alternative parenting/birthing' circles to pick up on some of this stuff. But my children are being raised with the standard of friendship that includes choose friends by virtue...not necessarily proximity. This has been EXTREMELY challenging as we anyway live in a very small remote village so..... you kind of make due with what you have. But I try to make every experience a learning lesson as naturally they will bond with their peers due to proximity. But we have friends elsewhere, chosen by standards of virtue and their parenting etc. I often hear parents or even daycare caregivers ( I used to work in the daycare) say to the kids who aren't abiding by the demands of the moment, "oh.....well you aren't my friend anymore if you don't....." or "well I'm not going to be your friend anymore if you don't...." I was floored. I didn't call it out explicity to the caregiver, rather offered a substitute that has proven effective to me when interacting with the children. So they repeated the desired behavior towards the child to achieve the desired result from the child but without the 'why'....if that makes sense. Like, they didn't have context as to why this approach is not only effective by WHY it's essential NOT to do the other approach which may prove 'successful' in the moment from time to time. Emotional manipulation. My kids are (almost 7 almost 9) and I noticed a few of the kids would use this on my kids if my kids didn't bend to every whim of their peer. My kids are raised to not budge to peer pressure simply because of these manipulation tactics but...they are 7 and 9 afterall and it will happen as the pressure is too much to bear for that age and I don't blame them for caving from time to time. Just try to arm them with more ammo so-to-speak. But the major problem is it is SOUL crushing to my kids to hear this from certain peers who they do consider to be their friends. They have come home completely devistated to hear this ridiculous sentence from their 'friend'. We have had many talks about this together. I confronted one of the peers and their parents directly. The parents could care less so since then, I confronted the daughter directly. I explained she is either a friend of my daughter or she isn't. It cannot be conditional on whether my daughter does what she (the girl) wants or not. The daugher listened and it turned more into a 'lecture' but that is how this girl is raised...only with hitting and yelling so I kept calm but assertive to give her a differnt example of how to settle disagreements. Since then, that particular issue of 'you aren't my friend unless you...' has been put to rest but the girl uses other manipulation tactics. It's a challenge since I try to simply show examples of this to my daughter without giving her the conclusion. She is still young...my son is starting to get it more easily now being almost 9 and we revisit this topic often. So I will continue with my daughter and hope she will naturally grow apart from this girl. I noticed that when my daughter plays with the children who use this manipulation (and others) she always comes home crying. I tell her it breaks my heart to see her cry after playing with friends and I am sure and can see her heart is broken. She always agrees but a few days later wants to play with them again. Sometimes I allow it and sometimes we recount the prior experience and choose a more positive alternative as there are 3 other friends that she consistantly has a 100% positive experience with. I sort of see it as a 'dance with the devil' for my daughter in her desire to occassionally want to interact with the manipulators. I never want to tell her NOT to be friends, as a demand, but I make my case as to why it's not the most productive and pleasant experience for her and of course when she returns home, for me and the family who see our loved on so hurt and heartbroken. Because she is the younger of our two kids.... it's taking her time to absorb this. Her view...as with my son at that age and many other kids that age is they want to be friends with EVERYONE. and it's so innocent and true! So I try not to enforce it and try to give alternatives and explainations whenever I feel uneasy. I have had discussions with some of the other parents about this and tell them what their children say f and how it affects my daughter so terribly. They don't take it as serious as they should so I just find ways to avoid them interacting whenever humanly possible. When children play at my house, I observe and stay in 'orbit' but let them play but always am aware when things escalate or provocation is attempted and I step in . The other mom just likes the convenience of how nice and fun my daugher is, of course, and feel like they can be hands and ears/eyes off when she is at their house but it's too much to bear for her. She holds it all ine until she returns home and explodes. I have confronted the mother several times before I simply convinced my daughter to stop going there. I asked the mother that if my daughter is playing and they want to invite a particular peer that gives her problems, to at least call me or send my daughter home. She agreed and complied a time or two and so I trusted her. But later I found out (when my daughter came back distraught) that the mother broke her promise and didn't even confront me. I confronted her and she sort of turned on me saying that it's the WORST thing to tell a child they cannot play with another child. For her friendship is the most important thing...bla bla bla. I told her, for me too and I don't tell my daughter NOT to play with anyone. We discuss the experiences she has and preferences. I explained to the mother that I don't want to control how she runs her house but I don't think it's much to ask to send my daughter home or call me when the other peer shows up and the children don't need to know a thing and it's not making a big scene. Anyway, not to get into every minor detail but this mother IS one who says to her kids in a pouty voice, "well i'm not your friend if you don't...." and I have confronted her and she blows it off like it's no big deal and even when her son says it to my daughter and it devistates her and I confront her she apologizes and says she will talk to him but I tell her.... but if you keep using this phrase on him.... talking to him not to say it won't change anything. She doesn't really respond to that and gets 'pressed lip' and short with me...to no surprise. But today I was at a store, alone and saw a mother with her daughter and grandaugter who couldn't have been more than 3 years old and the grandmother told the young tot... 'no you say? Well I can't be your friend anymore'. And I almost collapsed. My heart sank so deep and the look on the young girl's face was crushing. I thought...gee GRANDMA..... what if in 18 years a boy says that to her when she refuses sexual advances towards her..... would her compliance make you satisfied then? Like it's shocking how people don't extrapolate these repurcussions of things they say so casually but consistantly and ...AND ....they don't even notice the look on the child's face. Like it was a meaningly phrase and moment for the grandmother but the girl...barely 3 yrs DEFINITELY internalized that moment...you could tell on her face and I was a stranger 3rd party to the incident.

I remember a quote from Tom Woods about this topic. His position (this was 2 years ago) was that if he was in a concentration camp and they were given a vote on to be set free to change the guards (who might be more lenient) or whatever then he would vote and not question the morality. I struggled with this analogy but have realized we are all still in a coercive existance...we are in a sense in a 'concentration' camp of sorts...bound by many chains. So yeah.... if there is a chance to improve our situation or use the voting/election/campaign process as a way to talk about things that normally aren't received. I see elections as everyone finally waking up and placing themselves in a 'state of emergency'. They've been silent and asleep for a few years and now it all boils down to this so they have to hurry up and shoehorn everything they were scared to say before into their conversations. And by 'they' I mean average voters, not candidates necessarily. YOu ever notice that? The people around post food pictures, sports updates and such, they mock anyone who consistantly posts inconvenient truths about govenrment or the process of voting, etc for YEARS and when we enter an election year suddenly they are ALL opinionated and care a bunch about what's happening. So I sort of see elections as an opportunities to let the slaves talk freely and I don't see elections or voting as an end game. Just another step in the process to expose truth.... if the voters use the opportunity wisely. I think Libertarians get a lot of credit for this but still have their issues and biases. So for me I don't see it as immoral for that reason. it's a method to open our mind and thus future behaviors to more freedom. If I need to vote now to have these discusscions and get people excited and influenced and actived which will earn me more credibility and they will be more open to the scam of voting and so on and teach their kids and make others more aware, then the end result will be the desired out come in the far future anyway. I hope that all made sense. lol I found this video a few years ago when I first found out about Libertarianism. It sort of points out some of the same principles. I shared this a lot with people who are startled easily. lol It seem to be the softest landing for them to get hte conversation started about these topics and NAP.

love it! And yes...I agree completely. I give lengthy observations and love it when someone can condense it into a powerful sentence! thank you!!! Well done!

My only criticism of the video is that they claim he isn't informed. I really don't see evidence to back this claim. His speech persuasion style may not imply that he's informed since he is using 4th grade level speech. But he is VERY informed of the laws and rules and patterns and goings-on in the world as it were. Now, it may be HIM or his staff which again, shows he is a damn fine delegator of tasks and utilizes people to their highest potential. With that said, if he is informed and needs to break it down to a 4th grade level as to reach the maximum number of people, even if that means turning off those smart enough to be bored by his speech but not so smart that they can at least entertain that this strategy is to pass along his high level of being informed to those who couldn't keep up if he really spelled it out in higher language. It's a 'talking in code' of sorts. So I thought after a well explained presentation, the narrator/writer got lazy but simply stating without backing it up that he's not informed. My pushback if I had the opportunity to ask the creator of the video is, 'then where is Trump inaccurate?' If he's only selling a product/idea while being informed, then point out where he is inaccurate in the product/idea. But he's been accurately informed on many of the topics he pushes...even at a 4th grade level presentation in his campaign. Like there are things I am VERY well informed on but when I present it to people, I sort of 'dumb it down' so i can capitalise on the most talking time with them at the expense of them not realizing I am an expert in that particular subject. My husband does the same thing. People ramble on and try to 'teach him' and he gives them their time and he injects points on a humble level and slowly they realize he knows FAR more than they will ever dream of and then they start to ask more questions rather than 'teach him' or 'teach me' about the subject. Where as he could easily say from the begninning in a very high-level presentation who he is, and why he's the expert and rattle off the appropriate jargon but then it quickly turns people off or puts them on the defensive and is often counterproductive. Rather than be OBVIOUS in how informed I am, which typically puts people on the defensive or dis-ease or makes them feel inadequate, I would have acheived as them viewing me as the 'informed authority' on the matter, but I wouldn't have as much 'face time' with them to try to convince them.

And..I'm always immediately skeptical when the quantitative measure in a prediction or analysis is referred as 'in our lifetime!'. That means so much to different people depending on your age. To my children, that may seem feasable....so is this prediction for the audience aged 5-10? To post-college that means something totally different. To eldery....something totally different. So it makes the prediction vague and unscientifc yet they have this absolute quantitative measurement like '90% control by robots'. lol and if taxpayers are paying the salary of the 'futurologists' then I am even more skeptical since he is providing perceived value that is paid by force...not by the demand of the population that is suppose to take his assessment as some higher authority. If he provides his intellectual value/assessment of the robot situation that people voluntarily pay for then his words will hold more credibility and value since it's sustaining him and propelling him by the demand of people who exchange their money for the value his assessments provide.

Sorry but this is absurd. 90% will be run by robots. How can ANYONE even estimate that? Robot manufactuers and the domino of jobs that preceed these AI/robots? Are robots going to create and design the materials needed to make the robots? this is like the chicken/egg argument. Which came first..the robot or the design of the robot created by the robot. lol It's absurd. Humans will always be in control of how much is automated because it's at the extent of our intelligence to transfer to robot intelligence and capabilities and EVERYTHING that is needed in the robot needs a human behind it first and foremost. The materials, the wiring design, etc. Will it be the robots determining how to improve robots to serve humans or other robots? Engineers, psychologists to map the human intelligence to transfer into Robot software, etc. Robot repair....FARMERS will still be a required industry and all of the packaging materials needed, cars,homes, construction, electrictions, fisherman and boat manufactuerers and tool manufactuerers. Diapers, windows. It may take out the low-skill low wage jobs the more robots replace certain jobs, but honestly that's not always a bad thing. It just means society will be pushed to a new competition of more skilled/intelligence-seeking jobs than who can grab up the burger flipping jobs they are fighting to earn $15/hour. by you making the absolute claim that we won't need bartenders is implying that humans and the culture and society will make that demand. Sure if someone invests heavily in a robotic bartender and tries it out.... and peole respond well to it, then sure. But until then we have no idea. I personally would like a human being pouring my drink, not AI or robot. I think many people would like to hold on and preserve SOME aspects of human interaction, espeially where there is low physical risk in the job-description. Heavy lfiting, fork lift driving, etc...sure..... make an army of robots. But bartending.... I mean.... that's a stretch. AGain...people can try. I won't stop them but I don't think it will pass the test of the free market as a highly demanded source. The only way it would is if the robot-bartender manufacturer is upset that his investment didn't pass the free market test of demand and runs to the gvt to force people to buy his product in exhange for tax breaks or subsidies. And getting back to the libertarian question.... then you have exposed the flaw in libertarianism that even IT requires taxation, which is theft and cannot protect you in even the most extreme scenarios of inequality and why people graduate out of the Pampers of libertarians and take the highest level of consistancy and promote UPB anarchy because if robots dominate and the corporations behind them are profitable then they will need a HUGE supply of human employees still picking up the slack that the robots aren't filling and those people will have an income. Why the gvt would need to be involved in that is perplexing because you are admitting that the society has willfully supported or demand that robots take over them and thus providing some value in exchange and improving their quality of life. Odd that in your scenario robots didn't take over human government.... Then you inject this weird dichotomy without making the case of how it would have occured and simply injecting the solution of 'high taxation will resolve that'. makes no sense.

Did you even listen to this video or am I missing something? As far as 'committing a crime to prevent greater harm' he absolutely covers...maybe not in this particular video but in many MANY others. Actually he went over it for like the 100th time in the recent video about the cry-bully reporter Michelle Fields case as a recent example. What I find deliciously hilarious are the nitpickers who use the 'ok..let's say one guy owns ALLL of X and they won't let you use it because xzy'. My first response is....... isn't that what gvt already does and you don't seem to worry about it..in fact you seem to glorify and wonder how you can live without it.... so what if X was owned by one guy who actually provided that service cheaper, better quality and more effeciently even if he has no competitors...why would that be a bad thing when you don't complain now?

Maybe I am missing something. The quotes from the comment indicated that the violent people that were labeled as 'anarchists' were leftist protestors. Therefore they have nothing to do with the proposal of no state..... quite the opposite. So if they are peaceful or violant, they contradict the qualities needed to be able to call themselves anarchist or for anyone to call them anarchists. That was my point. Media ...even the limited govt right...is threatened by actual no-state anarchists. But to call a bunch of violent liberals 'anarchists' is an oxy-moron, a contradiction, mislabling used to invoke cognitive dissoance and works on people who don't understand literally what anarchism is. They only believe it's about acting violently and therefore the media use of this term inaccurately only in cases of violence, reinforces the confirmation bias.. liberals demand LARGE gvt anarchists want no gvt. Libertarians want small gvt.

Thanks for you empathy. Actually I am and never was close to my family and would never involve them with any school situation, especially if there was any potential for me to get in trouble (even if I was in the right, they would have NEVER taken my side or stand up for me) so I felt that my physical response (after trying to handle it one on one and with the teacher) was enough restittuion because he at least didn't do that again and sort of backed off for the rest of my H.S. experience. And it sent a signal to other boys to just don't mess with me by inappropriate touching. I got verbally mocked from there forward...not often but I am sharp and witty and woudl crush them with words. lol

I don't think it takes incredibly high intelligence to get it however for children it's easier since they aren't bogged down with cultural, religious, political biases to throw them into cognitive dissoance as much as introducing it to an adult. But the trouble is, children who have trouble with incosistancies are seen as 'troubled' or 'problimatic' and are usually medicated for ADD or a type of autism. Consistancy is the new crazy. so for adults who are newly introduced to it it takes a dedicated committment. So their IQ can be lower but if they are not dedicated to implementing it like a daily exercise in the things they do and say and support and such, then it's like any muscle, it's simply lost. Not because they don't hold the mental or intellectual capability to do so, but simply laziness. As somely pointed out before, again, children can pick up on this. So if an adult at least has an IQ of a gradeschool child and no valid reason not to implement the principles in their lifestyles they cannot claim 'ignorance' as any excuse...only laziness. I have been amazed after fine tuining UPB in my life how it helps me see the OBVIOUS cognitive dissoance 'prinicples' that surround us...more accurately OVERWHELM us around every corner. I dedicate a lot of my FB page to simpy point out cognitive dissoance in our daily lives so people will learn how to pick up on it.

It's too convenient to refer to the term 'anarchist' when it relates to unruly behavior. That is when you know the government and the media puppet prime's people to associate violence and unruly behavior with 'anarchy'. On an anecdotal note, in Israel, I've noticed that those on the far right will refer to anyone a smigdge to the left of them (which is basically everyone) as 'anarchist'. One guy even told me, "yeah....this douche is an anarchist who is advocating for Palestine to have its own state'. I paused to see if he was going to catch the contradiction and when he didn't I simply pointed it out (as he didn't realize he was speaking to an anarchist). I told him anarchist believe in no ruler, not no rules and therefore they do not see goverment as a moral entity of consistant principles or the best way to resolve the social and economical issues of the masses or groups. He looked at me perplexed so I was more succint in saying, "an anarchist cannot simultanously claim themselves an anarchist and advocate for new borders for a new state". lol So anytime I hear the word in direct association with unruly behavior I stop the conversation to first give the proper definition and association about what anarchy (by way of ethical philosophy) is all about. then can you really call them an anarchist? Like a single mom who didn't understood the theory of abstainance can't call herself a virgin.

I am so sorry for your and your daughters' /family's experience! I was filled with rage thinking of these two girls who I don't even know and if I even think of that being my son or daughter I go white hot with rage. I think this would be a great conversation for a call in show if you are up for it and can be a wonderful educational tool. I am encouraged by how many european followers there are and more recently those who call in to share their thoughts! so this can really be a great tool to solve this problem. Something I always liked about the advice Stefan gives is the 'make the problem real and personal for people'. Clearly it IS personal for you but it seems average Europeans need a viseral experience before tehy snap out of their daze. I think you are right that voting won't work but more armed women might do the trick! Maybe there is a way to find the other 30% who voted anti-immigration and any other victims of these sex-crimes...even if it's NOT rape! Maybe if you work together without using hte political machinary you can create campaigns to show/share the stories and make it REAL for people and campaigns that these girls/families are ARMED. You know these low-iq migrants do only response to force and if they are totally sharia, then they are afraid if they are killed by a woman, then they won't get to heaven...so sometimes making your group look BIGGER than it is, is enough to get the message across to these immigrants. At least in the US the left is a dying breed and they infiltrate media so they LOOK bigger than they are. So they LOOK like the majority. So, use that trick for positive change. Start a FB group, Youtube video to be shared, blog of these who are anti-immigrant but maybe focus on the rape/sexual molestation crimes so it's personal and comes from your heart and terrible experience and is REAL for people. Put up signs in neighborhoods around these immigartion centers "rape recovery group' or 'sexual assault recovery group' 'anynomous, safe sexual assault group', etc. So for those who have been assaulted/raped will find you AND for those who haven't, it will bring an 'alert' that clearly this is a growing problem in their area and even in areas away from the center will show people that this is a growing issue. I think grass roots will also bring the necessary people together that doesn't politicize it which tends to keep people quiet on these important issues. Even buying those signs to put on your house window or door or fence 'owner is armed' or whatever they caption. Anything to give a SIGNAL that you are taking your protection and your daugthers' protection in your own hands. I think you will get weird looks but it might provoke conversation with people in the process who pass you by or it might bring inquiries to those who live around you and simply putting up a sign like peopel put up 'beware of dog' signs.... isn't directed towards immigrations... just a caution to everyone. 'owner is armed and trained marksman'.... so it can't be blamed as 'racists' or anything. And yeah...training/arming your family won't hurt either. Best of luck!!!

When I was in H.S. a boy who sat behind be did this continually, despite me trying to resolve it directly with him and with the teacher. After I exhausted all appropriate avenues of resolution, I told him if he does it again I will hit him. The next day he did it again to call my bluff and coincidnetally my bra came undone! I was LIVID and embarrassed as hell. That is awkward age for ALL ages and I was always made fun of my 'flat chest'. But I turned around and open handed bitch slapped his face.... like HARD....it hurt the hell out of my hand I slapped him so hard.. I would have NEVER throat punched him....I agree that is very excessive and can really cause severe damage for a bra snapping but a hard slap will send a message that it won't be worth him trying anything more sinister. (meaning.... you never know if the teenager or older male will start with bra snapping and then if he sees you don't take decisive action against it might increase the harrassement) Coincidentally, I was at a college party many years later and he was there. I got too drunk and asked my friend (whom hosted the party) if I could spend the night since I wasn't fit to drive. That guy from H.S. played as the helpful friend and offered a sofa and he tried to come on to me. I kicked him in the groin and stumbled away. It was a wake up call to really be careful how much you drink even when you are AROUND friends who are looking after you. So that's why I saw...something that seems 'innocent' when they are young...if not dealt with, will manifest in these kids when they are bigger and stronger. I learned later that he was severely abused by his father. I knew the father spanked but I found out he also abused his wife my Classmate's mother) and such so It all sort of 'made sense' that he was a sadistic/predatory individual. And more than a decade later I found out he is a state-employee! sorry to add this off topic anecdote but he found me on FB and I ignored him but he private messaged me and I simply gave a cordial hello. Long story short, he was actually a 'top' student and always made good grades even if he didn't study. So when he told me he was a ranger at a national park I made the comment that it makes sense that he succeeded in the government educational system as was rewarded with a government job. He laughed and made a flirty comment about the 'good old days' of H.S. and I simply told him I am not interested in continuing any connection with him and blocked him. Even 6000 miles away an online the guy still gave me the creeps! Anyway, he and the class was stunned..clearly they had no idea why the hell I did that as they had ZERO context. The teacher didn't do much which gave me the feeling that he knew since I had approached him days earlier about the problem. So I received zero recourse from the teacher but neither did the male student as I guess the teacher felt I gave enough recourse. Looking back I'm glad and I think had I not at least calmly told the teacher wihtout really asking for his intervention, it probably saved me a lot of headache as I could have really gotten in trouble for that despite the bra-snapping if I did that and the teacher had no advance context of the issues I was having with my classmate. But I would also encourage my daughter (and son!) to state her boundaries (and if she's a minor) to let an adult know of the situation and if it persists to use physical force to stop it.

Thanks for the clarification. So yes..I still stand by my theory as to why. Briefly again, the current culture is trying to ram down our throats that 'femenism' or 'equality of females' is lacking and must be equalized. (to the point that femenists need to invent problems and inequalities in order to solve them). Anyway, so for that 'culture' it's insane for them to think a WOMAN would want to turn to a man so they simply under emphasis it or ignore it or down play it. But a MAN switching to 'girl power' team...well..that fits the femenists just fine! So I can appreciate your personal experience an interaction with over 200 (that number surprised me as high and I see your point in bringing this topic up). But you mentioned they are under-represented in media and where my repsonse was trying to answer. Within the community it was interesting what you shared as to their thoughts and perspective. But as far as their underrepresentation in the media, it's clear the left SJW which includes the extreme femenists...aren't interested in the woman who are leaving team girl-power to be an 'icky boy' as they would see it.... basically they hate men so much that they would not want to glorify a woman who would willingly transform into the 'enemy' or the gender they perceive as the enemy.

I'm too curious why this is important to you (not saying it shouldn't be..just wondering) but consider too that is going to the moon really an acheivement for anyone not directrly involved? I mean the whole feat of it, of course....it's astounding and many calculate that had it not been a government program at all, the moon could have been 'conquered' even earlier. But the whole point and motive behind it is not for 'funsies'...but to flex technological and military power assert ourselves as a super power and dominate the sky/space. this has nothing of value when you really think about it for the majority of common folk not in government power. It's played off like this will protect us but it only motivates others to dominate the sky with scarier weaponry and that includes crazy-led nations like N. Korea. So I'm not sure if it really matters if anyone would have done it had it not been the US. I think it depends if none of the WW's would have occured...then people would have carried on being more industrious and prosperous and not worry so much about nationalism and militarization.

classic projection. The guilty party throwing red herrings and guilty projections at 'innocent bystanders'

Oh wow. that is distrubing. If I can give a personal/female viewpoint: In my childhood I bonded with animals very deeply. My father was an emotional ghost and my mother was am absolute dictator and physically and verbally disciplined me. In the height of her abuse I started to hit animals and them try to comfort them. Looking back I understand that I was reinacting my experience with my parents. It was a scary time and confusing as I remember being only 8 years old or younger and catching myself and stopping myself sort of intuitively. So after I stopped myself from hurting animals more, I continued the 'abusive reinacting' with my dolls which was sort of an outlet. Rest assured from that brief moment I have never hurt animals and now have pets for me/kids to enjoy and teach them to bond and take care of them and we enjoy the experience. Anyway, animals are' there' for us and respond to affection...of course it's not love but when you give they sort of 'give back'. I know now, of course that their giving back is simply being near you for selfish reasons....to get more attention and food etc. lol But as a child, before that reality sets in, it's sort of fullfilling. Now, I cannot imagine still having that mindset as an adult and as an adult in the dating world. Yikes. My oldest sister was divorced after 16 years of a childless marriage. And throughout they had like 5 large dogs who she called her 'kids'. After I started having kids it became increasingly offensive to hear her talk about her dogs as 'children' and then have her complain about my human children. This sister is the oldest of the siblings and lives her life in a way that is pleasing to the parents. She is the 'golden child' in their eyes. My parents couldn't be bothered by us kids... I mean the kids they chose to have and so she basically self-erased and continues. (I'm providing this as possible character traits that might be common with these types of people). she is very self-indulgent an any spare time she has she takes a lot of moral self congratulation by volunteering to help....dogs. So it's one of those things you can't even discuss with her to sort of question or be skeptical about without her using verbal abuse as me coming off as an animal hater. But she would prefer to volunteer at the humane society for 8 hours straight than babysit my son for 1 hour so I could take a break... She is a very selfish person and uses her 'animal volunteer work' as a guise that she is some virtuous, empathetic, caring person...which she is....to animals....but not to humans who have to experience her in an emotional, intellectual way. That's the part these people don't get about themselves. They complain people are too difficult to handle and I agree but their behavior is also very offensive. They never have to experience THEMSELVES on what it's like to experience someone who basically hates humans except themselves. So with that context, I can make some assumptions that these women exhibit a past that had outright abuse or were neglected, especially by the male figures. from the neglect they were not taught by example how to interact with people or people of the opposite sex. It's possible (as was in my childhood) barely seeing the parents interact with each other. A lot of 'silent dinners' and cold moments where the family sits together to watch TV but no one interacts, speaks to one another. It's the lonly feeling in a room full of people. I think for sure it's a red flag as you already suspected and what I think the red flag is specifically is they are advertising their lonliness and lack of experience in interacting with humans. Oddly the dating sites seem like a helpful place for them to overcome this but they first need to be able to interact with humans both male and female on a platonic level before jumping into romantic arenas.