A Teenage Dirtbag

[Flower Flicks @____flowers__]

Scotland..🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[✶ @echoesofworld]

rainy day in Edinburgh

[ketlinnya / keju 🧀 @ketlinnya]

japanese twitter : i hate faggots, i hate the minority and i'm a pedophile😭💢

chinese twitter : i just had sex with my son

indonesian twitter : prabowo kontoollllll

korean ppl: i hate the minorities and i like american cock

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@bersuwara_ sialan, bantuin mikir woe, cara wording yang tepat biar ga dikeroyok massa 😹

[Sensurround @ShamashAran]

Okay. I'm going to explain something here, because apparently we've reached the point in human civilization where BASIC FIREARMS SAFETY is now a controversial political position.

There is a concept in engineering called "defense in depth." It's a fairly simple idea. You have multiple, independent layers of protection against something going catastrophically wrong, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding new and exciting ways to screw things up.

For example, commercial buildings have automatic fire sprinklers. They ALSO have fire extinguishers.

"But the building has SPRINKLERS!" you might exclaim. "Why do we need FIRE EXTINGUISHERS? What are you, some kind of ANTI-SPRINKLER BIGOT?" No. We have both because fires are bad, and we'd prefer the building not turn into a large, expensive barbecue.

This brings us to firearms. Most of us "gun bros" (and chicks/sisters/catgirls/whatever) are familiar with something called Cooper's Four Rules of Firearms Safety, named after Jeff Cooper, who was something of an authority on the subject.

They are:

1. Treat every firearm as though it is loaded. ALWAYS.
2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until your sights are on the target and you are ready to fire.
4. Be absolutely certain of your target and what lies beyond it.

Notice something interesting about these rules?

They work TOGETHER.

They're an example of DEFENSE IN DEPTH.

Suppose you accidentally point your firearm at something you don't particularly want to shoot, such as your television, your dog, or your Uncle Bob, who has already had a difficult week.

Well, if you're following Rule Three, your finger isn't on the trigger.

And if you're following Rule One, you're behaving as though the gun is loaded, EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY UNLOADED IT FIVE MINUTES AGO.

Here's something that firearms instructors understand, and apparently a surprising number of people on the internet do not:

HUMAN BEINGS ARE IDIOTS. Not ALL the time, mind you. Frequently enough that entire engineering disciplines exist to protect us from ourselves.

Sometimes we forget to unload a firearm. Sometimes we THINK we unloaded a firearm. Sometimes we're absolutely POSITIVE the safety is engaged, when in fact it isn't. Sometimes we install a mechanical device designed to prevent a firearm from discharging, and then behave as though this magically repeals the fundamental principles of firearms safety.

It does not. A mechanical safety device is ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION. It is not a permission slip to disregard all the others.

This is why responsible gun owners follow these rules even when the firearm is unloaded, even when the safety is engaged, and even when we're absolutely certain the thing couldn't possibly fire.

The whole POINT of defense in depth is that when one layer fails, the others are still there to prevent somebody from having a REALLY BAD FRIDAY IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM.

I suspect part of the problem here is a fundamental difference between British and American firearms culture.

In Britain, firearms are sufficiently restricted that, for most people, getting your hands on one involves obtaining the appropriate government permissions, satisfying various legal requirements, and presumably presenting a signed note from the Archbishop of Canterbury confirming that you are a responsible adult.
Meanwhile, over here in the United States, we crazy Americans can, (subject to the applicable laws,) just BUY THE DAMN THINGS.

We own them. We shoot them. We clean them. We take them to the range. Some of us own enough firearms to equip a moderately sized Central American republic.

Contrary to what many of you seem to believe, this does not mean we're all wandering around our living rooms casually pointing loaded shotguns at Uncle Bubba while shouting "YEEHAW!" Quite the opposite, actually. Because we regularly handle firearms, responsible American gun owners develop habits specifically intended to prevent Uncle Bubba from having to explain to an emergency-room physician why he's suddenly acquired an additional hole leaking important biological fluids.

We follow multiple, overlapping safety rules precisely because we understand that mechanical devices can fail, people can make mistakes, and bullets are notoriously reluctant to return to the barrel once they've been fired.

And this brings us to the photograph.

The reason people are criticizing the officer in the hijab is not, contrary to your fascinating theory, that she is a WOMAN. Or that she is a MUSLIM. Or that she is wearing a HIJAB.

It's that she's handling a firearm in a manner that violates basic firearms safety principles.
Here's the really astonishing part:

WE EXPECT TRAINED PROFESSIONALS TO KNOW BETTER.

I know. Shocking. We expect electricians not to lick exposed wires. We expect surgeons to wash their hands. We expect airline pilots to remember that LANDING is generally considered an important part of flying. We expect police officers to demonstrate safe firearms handling.

These expectations do not magically disappear because the professional in question happens to belong to a demographic group you believe requires special protection from criticism. In fact, I'd argue that holding her to a LOWER standard because she's a Muslim woman would be considerably more insulting than holding her to the exact same standard as every other armed professional.

Her religion is irrelevant. Her sex is irrelevant. Her clothing is irrelevant.

HER FIREARMS HANDLING IS THE ISSUE.

And if your first instinct upon seeing someone criticize unsafe firearms handling is to accuse them of religious bigotry rather than examine the actual safety concern, I would respectfully suggest that you have confused firearms safety with a sociology seminar.

This would be merely annoying if we were discussing something harmless, like the proper way to load a dishwasher. Unfortunately, we're discussing a device specifically designed to propel a piece of metal at extremely high velocity. Those devices, unlike internet political arguments, have a nasty habit of producing consequences that cannot be fixed by deleting your post.

Which you should consider doing, anyway.

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@cilubatupakhaji ini mah daniel kruger effect wkwkw. apalagi, history itu sendiri topik subjektif, dimana tergantung mau melihat dari sudut pandang mana. salah di neohistorianya sendiri yang ga bisa melihat sejarah secara menyeluruh

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

Ada pola yang cukup konsisten: kenapa akun-akun atau kolektif "progresif" di medsos belakangan gampang banget tumbang gara-gara skandal berat, mulai dari isu dana donasi, gaji karyawan ditahan, ampe standar ganda. (study case : Sister in Danger & Neohistoria)

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@deepfriedoreo_ operational wise, baiknya gitu. cuma, yakali movement diatur ISO wkwk. emang jatuhnya kesadaran tiap individu aja

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@deathlessdusk sadly, disitu. yaa, semoga aja digital movement bisa lebih baik lagi, dan progressive movement bisa punya satu goal yang jelas

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@pelat_baja sadly, tapi bukan berarti salah. mengharap kehidupan dan society yang baik itu bagus. yg salah, ketika roadmapnya ga jelas, garis finishnya abstrak

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@HirooAPG plus, begitu bermasalah, pada goyang semua, ya karena ideologinya based on morality individu. begitu individunya bermasalah, the whole tree is shaken

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@AwakBe yeaa, sebel lah. diajak diskusi langsung labelling, instead of diskusi yang bener

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@hayazakitwt selama mereka masih bergerak dengan cara begini, ya bakal downfall

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@bim_rmd semua pergerakan yang basisnya moral individual, niscaya akan rapuh dan tidak berkembang

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@coolgirlII asu, royalti gw mana

"ciri orang suka love bombing"

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@_maulanaas menurut gw, kerja keras memang tidak mengkhianati hasil, namun kerja keras mengkhianati harapan

hasil yang kita mau, dan hasil yang layak untuk kerja keras kita, sering kali ga match.

stop ama struktural argument, focus on what we can do instead of blaming the environment

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@arasyaziz mau ga mau, itu tantangannya. as long as everyone holding their moral high ground, instead of turun gunung buat napak tanah, mereka ga bakal bisa mencapai visi mereka

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@darievent_ utopis si ga masalah ya, selama goalnya pada bisa mufakat disitu, dan ada roadmap jelas menuju kesana. contoh aja partai demokrat di US, mereka jelas visi dan roadmapnya, mau bersatu (imigran, minority, islamist), makanya bisa tahan bentur

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@_sseultry nah aeokaowkaowk

pelatihnya ga punya prinsip, ya ganti ae terus itu pelatih, dan seberapa banyak gantinya, bakal tetep ampas awal musim

same case di progressive movement nowadays

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@temangobrol yup, makanya goyah banget kalo individu itu bermasalah. compare dengan conservative movement yang secara general, sebermasalah apapun individunya, prinsip induknya masih aman

[A Teenage Dirtbag @ZenTheGarden]

@allandbagus efek ngerombak internal kali ya, who knows