Mark Twain’s classic has always been the subject of controversy. It its early days, racists condemned the novel for positively portraying a friendship between a white boy and a black man.
Today, Special Snowflakes™ demand its removal from schools and libraries, because it chafes their fragile labia.
This week, a Montgomery County school removed Huckleberry Finn from its curriculum after a group of students said the book made them uncomfortable.
“We have all come to the conclusion that the community costs of reading this book in 11th grade outweigh the literary benefits,” Hall said in his letter.
A group of students said an American classic made them “feel uncomfortable.”
Let that sink in for a moment. A great American novel about a friendship between a white boy and a black man at a time when such friendships were not just frowned upon, but hated, despised, and punished is making Special Snowflakes “uncomfortable.” This novel is the epitome of American literature!
There used to be a time when ideas were challenged, viewpoints were explored, history was closely examined and discussed. It used to be called an education.
Now, an education is wrapping Special Snowflakes in brightly colored cotton to protect them from mean ideas, bad language, and anything else that may result in a rash on their precious little hineys. They can’t possibly be placed outside their comfort zones! They can’t possibly be challenged! Their precious feelings are more important than knowledge, than historical context, than the ability to analyze.
So in order to protect their fragile sensibilities, they burn anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. Why be reminded of Of course it’s figurative for now. They simply remove the book from school or from the library, but how long before it really starts?
“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.”
― Ray Bradbury,
The ridiculous thing is that the principal of the school does not believe removing the book constitutes censorship. “I really do believe that this is an opportunity for the school to step forward and listen to the students.”
The disconnect is frightening, because this is what is teaching today’s youth. This is what is running today’s schools. Instead of applying his knowledge and expertise and taking control of the ass enraged, entitled Generation Cupcake offendapotomi, he’s simply giving in to their unreasonable and ignorant demands.
Is it any wonder, schools are putting out generations of perpetually butthurt, barely educated cattle who outright REFUSE to think?
You ever read something so stupid, it makes your eyes bleed? I’ve been wanting to blog about this all weekend, but with no computer and only iPhone access to the Internet, this wasn’t going to work. The blog post would have looked like it was written by a slow child.
But now that I have a computer, the urge to address the utter dumbassery coming from the ignorant maw of alleged “self-defense expert” Mary Anne Franks is strong. In a recent debate about whether or not to allow concealed carry of personal firearms on Florida campuses, Franks testified in the Florida legislature against restoring the right of trained, law-abiding Floridians to defend themselves while studying in the state’s universities.
“Guns are highly effective in committing crimes. They are rarely effective in preventing them,” Franks said.
Franks’ ridiculous claim would come as a surprise to anyone who is actually capable of reading comprehension.
Why, just in the past few days, the media has reported on a concealed carry license holder who stopped an armed robbery in a Chicago neighborhood store, a pizza delivery guy in Florida, who used a gun to defend himself against an armed thug, an armed Oklahoma man who successfully defended himself against an assailant in his own driveway, an armed father who protected his daughter from an armed thug who held a gun to her head, an armed Michigan homeowner who held off eight… that’s right EIGHT thugs until police arrived, and a California gun owner who ended a hammer rampage. That’s right, hammer rampage.
So maybe Franks just doesn’t have access to the Internet. Maybe she doesn’t make enough money as a “self-defense expert” to purchase a newspaper. Or maybe she’s just too stupid to read. Whatever the reason for the hoplophobic ridiculosity that she spewed, she’s obviously wrong. Very wrong.
Franks said law enforcement officers and military members receive extensive training in firearms yet “struggle to use them effectively and accurately,” citing an 18 percent “hit rate” in gun fights involving the New York Police Department.
A study that examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police and civilians revealed that armed civilians successfully stopped criminals 83 percent of the time, compared 68 percent of police. Additionally, only 2 percent of shootings by civilians resulted in an innocent being shot, compared to 11 percent of shootings by police who mistook an innocent person for a criminal.
So what does this mean? Apparently, armed civilians are much more effective at actually preventing crimes than police. This is not to impugn police officers. Many of them are dedicated, skilled professionals. But fact is they can’t be there all the time, and when seconds count, they’re still minutes away. Additionally, while police do have training requirements, many gun owners I know impose much stricter requirements on themselves. They enjoy the training. They practice longer and harder – not because they have to, but because they want to.
And yes, as a member of the U.S. Army, my training was extensive – in basic training. After initial entry training was over, we were lucky if we got the opportunity to qualify once per year.
Again, I don’t say this to impugn our military, but given our jobs, and especially on deployment, it’s not like we could go out and plink whenever we wanted.
Franks then doubles or triples (I’m having trouble keeping up with this much dumbshittery) down on the stupid.
“The fact of the matter is guns escalate aggression. They create a false sense of security. They encourage violence as a first resort,” Franks said.
Is that why 92 percent of defensive gun uses result in no injuries and no shots fired?
And then comes the real doozy from a woman who obviously has never experienced sexual assault, but whose goal is to ensure that everyone else is unable to prevent it should the situation arise. She noted that most assault victims know their attackers.
“Unless someone is going out on a date with her hand on a gun, this is not going to help her,” Franks said.
Franks then went from full retard to full turnip when she inexcusably squawked that “it’s an illusion to think crime victims will exhibit the calm, objective demeanor of a movie hero in defending themselves.”
“Studies done by many, many professional have shown that it is really, really unlikely for anyone to use a gun effectively in self defense, especially in cases of sexual assault,” said Franks.
What’s disgusting is that this is a woman who actually is testifying in a legislative proceeding that women are too incompetent to use a gun in self defense! What’s appalling is that she wants to keep women defenseless, because most sexual assaults are committed by those known to the victim.
While it’s true that 82 percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by a “non-stranger,” Franks thinks (if you can call her twisted logic that) the other 18 percent don’t deserve the opportunity to defend themselves against someone they don’t know. Additionally, she assumes that every sexual assault happens on a “date” and that a woman shouldn’t carry a self defense tool in those instances.
Franks is like many other hoplophobes who believe that if the odds are against you successfully defending yourself, you shouldn’t even try. Much like the sniffly gun grabbers who point out that the Warsaw Ghetto uprisings were unsuccessful in stopping the slaughter of Jews, and therefore, why even bother, Franks assumes that since a rapist will likely be someone whom the victim knows, she is less likely to be successful at fending off a sexual assault, so why try?
That’s how little this “self-defense expert” cares about the lives of women! Why bother, ladies? Just lie back and enjoy it. Or piss yourself, because rape isn’t about power and control, but about getting one’s rocks off!
This repugnant invertebrate is an insult to feminism and an affront to all women!
The fact that she considers women too incompetent and emotional to successfully use firearms to prevent assault flies directly in the face of logic and empowerment, as well as actual research.
A 2005 study revealed that resistance does reduce the chances of the rape being carried through to completion. What will armed resistance do? An article by Dave Kopel in the Washington Post this year quotes this study to show that armed self-defense does, indeed, stop an assailant.
The Colorado Sheriffs’ support for defensive arms carrying is confirmed by national data. For example, the U.S. Census Bureau conducts in-person interviews with several thousand persons annually, for the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 1992-2002, over 2,000 of the persons interviewed disclosed they had been raped or sexually assaulted. Of them, only 26 volunteered that they used a weapon to resist. In none of those 26 cases was the rape completed; in none of the cases did the victim suffer additional injury after she deployed her weapon.
That’s right. Women who admitted to have used firearms in self-defense to prevent a rape were successful in doing so.
Franks’ contention that women are incapable of rationally defending themselves is offensive to its core. It’s cowardly. It’s false. It’s insulting to strong, independent women.
Those who think the right is waging some kind of “war on women,” because goddammit, every woman should be able to buy condoms at taxpayer expense, and if you don’t think so… SHUT UP MISOGYNIST! are apparently not appalled at this barely coherent snatch impugning the ability, good sense, skill, and judgment of fellow women. They’re apparently not disgusted at Franks’ lack of respect for her females and their lives and dignity. They don’t care that she advocates rendering women helpless – unable to use the most effective self-defense tool on the market today – apparently as long as she supports taxpayer funded condoms and abortions!
Of course we shouldn’t be surprised that this progtard would advocate disarmament of women, given her publication history in such notably leftist publications as the Huffing-glue Post and the Atlantic.
We also shouldn’t be shocked that her political agenda trumps all, including common sense, women’s dignity, and safety on campus.