I know nothing about this beyond the picture I found on the internet.

Just looking at it made my face cringe, my eye twitch, and by butthole clench.

I don’t know where this is, who this is, what holster this is, all I know is that it is a bad design.

I’m curious how many people signed off on this to have it made and nobody lookd at it and asked, “why?”

The other thing I know is that when this guy chambers a round and shoots his foot off, Glock fanbois will blame Sig.

For years now I kept reading that when it comes to Social Media, if you are getting it for free, you are the product.  Now that Elon Musk is thinking about charging a fee for access to X/Twitter, the same people are screaming about “ZOMG! dEatH Of  fREe sPEech!”

What is it?

This popped on my feed yesterday, I made a note to pass it on to you.

This is truly incredible.

Billionaire property developer Tim Gurner said that "We need to see unemployment rise. We need it to rise 40-50%. We need to see pain in the economy. We need to remind people that they work for the employer, not the other way around." pic.twitter.com/E86B8qnn31

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) September 16, 2023

This piece of shit is Australian, but I suspect that his opinion I’d nearly universal among his socioeconomic class.

I hope, for his sake, that the baby blood drinking Satanic rituals they engage in make then bulletproof.

Put half of middle America, the people who own 400 million guns, out of work.

Squeeze them financially until they hurt to remind them that they are not people but slaves to the billionaire class who should feel eternally grateful for a pittance.

Shit is on such a hairy, ragged edge, that I don’t see that not going tits up violent.

Consider the men who worked their entire lives to buy a house and have a bit of the American dream. Lay them off and take that away from them to teach them a lesson about how their place in life is under the investment class boot heel.

Take away their sense of dignity, their pride, their hope.

See what happens.

Ask the House of Bourbon or the Romanovs how that went.

Senate Majority Leader Schumer directs the Sergeant at Arms to no longer enforce the Senate's dress code — to accommodate the senator who wants to wear this outfit to perform his duties. From @axios: https://t.co/M6NwVLTi3z pic.twitter.com/AFkE0gAouT

— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 18, 2023

I understand not liking to wear a suit, but rules of decorum exist for a reason.

If Senator Lurch refuses to put on a suit to conduct official business as part of his duties as a Senator, that’s a problem.

It would be one thing if he were in a cast, and they passed a medical exemption that said he didn’t have to wear suit pants if he can’t put them on over a medical device.

But he just won’t wear a suit.

I’m convinced he can’t wear a suit.

He’s not competent enough to button pants, buckle a belt, and tie a tie.

Rather than admit that, the Senate Democrats changed the dress code.

This isn’t about the dress code, this is about the extent Democrats will go to cover for one of their own being mentally incompetent.

You guys know our position about leaving guns unsecured in a vehicle: you simply don’t.

But Tennesse seems to have a particular issue with this kind of crime and, one of the factors is well known:

Tennessee faces an epidemic of stolen guns from cars, but the statistics show the perpetrators are rarely caught and arrested.

Of 5,386 reported cases of guns stolen from cars statewide last year, less than 4% resulted in an arrest, according to numbers from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

In fact, gun theft from a vehicle has among the lowest clearance rates for all theft-type crimes.

Tennessee gun thefts are spiking: Why aren’t there more arrests (tennessean.com)

Let’s make it simpler to read. If you steal a gun from a car, you have a 96% probability not to be arrested, much less prosecuted for it.

Amazingly enough, the new law that makes gun thefts from vehicles a felony has been called a burden on the prosecution and the usual suspects bemoan the fact that no laws penalizing gun owners for leaving guns in the cars were passed. Of course, it is easier to go after some citizen who comes voluntarily to report a crime than actually going after criminals.

This is also of value:

Criminals will target vehicles with out of county or out of state plates, as well as those with specific bumper stickers for organizations like the National Rifle Association. On his way into work the other day, Winter saw a license plate on a sedan that simply read: GLOCK. “You could be sure that there’s probably a gun in that car,” he said.

Advertising you are a gun owner does work in the criminal’s advantage, but then again, the reason why a lot of people leave guns in their cars is because they are forced to work/visit gun free zones and legally cannot carry their firearm with them.

It is almost like the Gun Control Cabal is working in tandem with the criminal element.

Or maybe they just simply are.

This famous experiment was conducted in August 1971. The researcher had placed an ad in the Palo Alto City newspaper.

70 people replied and were brought in for interviews. According to Zimbardo, the lead researcher, these were “diagnostic interviews”. The term “diagnostic interview” was understood to mean looking for mental instability or particular sadistic tendencies in the respondents. The interviews were also used to eliminate respondents with “medical disability or history of crime or drug abuse”.

After the interviews, they were left with 24 participants.

This is the very first point of contention. There are many articles that discuss how these elimination interviews were not screening for the right psychological indicators. This is an open question because different people can have different opinions on what are disqualifying indicators.

One article question if the diagnostic interviews tested for BDSM tendencies. As shown about, the understanding was that sadistic tendencies were tested for, but the actual description by Zimbardo does not explicitly state that exclusion.

Also note, there are many articles that reference or discuss the SPE, there are books and movies about it. What I was unable to find is the original peer reviewed publication. The quotes I am using come from a 1975-slide show that Zimbardo prepared.

The way the experiment began, again according to Zimbardo, was:

Blindfolds are not part of normal police procedures. Before the victim even arrives at the mock prison, they have already been treated outside the normal practices.

One of the things to note is that Zimbardo was a prison reform activist. To set up his mock prison, he “called upon the services of experienced consultants”. His primary consultant was Carlo Prescott, a convicted felon with seventeen years in San Quentin, Soledad, Folsom and other prison.

His other consultants came from a pool of other ex-convicts and correctional personnel.

This would be the equivalent of somebody wanting to find out how access to guns effects people, and then hiring Giffords as their lead consultant. With their other consultants being experts recommended by Giffords, such as Brady, March for Our Lives, and Everytown.

As part of their mock prison, they created a punishment cell, called “The Hole”. It was a 2×2 closet. If you read The Gulag Archipelago: An experiment in Literary Investigation you will find a section where Solzhenitsyn talks about prisoners being tortured by being placed in an out building about 2 by 2 with countless bugs.

It makes me think that maybe Zimbardo might have heard some speeches by Solzhenitsyn and decided to implement parts of that narrative as part of his mock representation of an American prison.

From the point the prisoners are brought into the mock prison, they are treated in a manner to break them.

The prisoners were issued a smock, no underclothes, a pair of rubber sandals, a hair cap. They were fitted with a chain to their ankle.

Again, not at all normal.

I’m disgusted at what I’m reading. More so because Zimbardo is proud of his work.

He used this work to try to change people’s opinion of prison life. To imply that all prison personal were petty, sadistic, dictators.

In 2019, Thibault Le Texier published his paper “Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment”

In other words, as a commentor pointed out on my article about Ordinary Men, there is a strong likelihood that the SPE is bad science.