Schrödinger's Social Media

Leaving Facebook (without actually leaving...)

So.

A few weeks ago, I left Facebook. Well, I didn't. But I did. 

After many, many years of being on Facebook (July 2, 2008), I think I am good with stepping away.

And, yes, I know some of my friends and family have called it ‘Davebook’ in the past - and for good reason. I am a chronic Facebook poster, sharer, over-sharer, linker, liker, etc. I have maintained a few pages related to my personal interests and politics. I created and managed a group related to Military Music. I connected and reconnected with people I have worked with, grew up with, and played with (music, games, whatever). And now I think I am good.

---

Now. What's all this about NOT actually leaving...

Well, several things came up as I was thinking about getting away from Facebook. Part of this is tied to Facebook's insane hold over EVERYTHING on the internet. Whether it is UPS or gaming sites, signing in via Facebook will get you in the door. So there is that.

The main reason is I don't want to lose contact with my people. Yes, I said 'My People'. Most of the people on my page are people who want to come into contact with me - or at least are willing to put up with my nonsense. And by nonsense, I mean anything from Star Wars to video games to K-Pop to politics.

There are some people I have only known through Facebook. I am closer to some of these people than people I have known since childhood. One of these close friends recently posted the following:

So do you all have "sacred" people?

I know. That sounds weird. 

But what I mean is, there's family. There are friends. But beyond those levels of intimacy, there are a select few people who could do no wrong you would find unforgivable. People you're intensely protective of and loyal to. Yes? No? 

Is there a term for that? Love is insufficient. I've thought a lot about this, over the years. Despite my lack of religious leanings, the best word I've come up with is sacred.

A number of these folks have become my sacred people. Several of them know who they are. That said, yes, I am Terry. You can be Wayne or you can be Garth. I won't judge.

---

So, why are you leaving then? 

There are a few reasons.

Primarily, Facebook itself, and my inability to not browse, comment, link, browse, link some more... wash, rinse, repeat. I will be the first to admit I have a bad case of FOMO. But then I also have the insufferable need to tell everyone what I have learned. That and I have limited self control. Basically, I am a monkey with clothes and no tree to live in. I am working on that. I put a down payment on a tree.

A second reason is that it is getting mean. Not just run-of-the-mill mean. This is getting to be a full-bore, GIFT-esque assault on anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. I have seen otherwise sane people turn into complete asshats for the simplest reasons. I used to be one of those people. A friend called me on it. I thought I was being funny but I realized I was being a dick. I am tired of calling people on it. I'm not a cop and I am done thinking I need to be a referee (online, anyway).

Finally, I am looking for a change. I am getting rid of the comfort. As I was thinking about why I wanted to get away from FB, I came across this video from Linn/Darbin Orvar, one of my fave YouTubers. She states it much better than I feel I could.

There are other reasons - Not wanting to filter yet not wanting to offend; Disappointment with humanity; Election malaise...  But nothing I need to go in to here (at least right now). In general, I feel I can't be who I want to be online. 

---

So what HAVE  you been doing?

Work, mostly. Coaching soccer. Playing a variety of games. Getting to know western Arkansas.

My online socialising has seen me getting more into Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Tumblr (links below). My online education has seen me going to YouTube, picking one topic, and letting it roll from one video to the next. Ted Talks one day, Video Game Design another. Soccer Laws of the Game; K-Pop; Prop Modeling; Carpentry; Gaming...

It is amazing what you can get done while listening to people who know more than you about a subject.

---

The Upshot:

Less stress. I feel like I have time for other things. It's not interfering with other aspects of my life. I don't feel like I have to check my phone every five minutes to see what is going on. I take more of an active role in what is going on around me. I get to realize that there are other things I can do other than scrolling interminably through a newsfeed of what Facebook wants me to see - not the newsfeed I want.

To top it off, I get to do all of this without feeling like I am missing out on the latest 'big thing'.

The downside is that I don't feel as if I am involved in the lives of my friends out there in the big blue world. From Atlanta to Portland - with side trips to Canada and Europe - many of my favorite people are only accessible through FaceBook. I now miss their lives. And I am sad.

So. If you want to contact me but you are not currently a friend on Facebook (I won't be accepting friend requests for the foreseeable future), You can reach me at the following:

• Twitter
• Instagram
• Tumblr
• Snapchat (mtkgamer)

And for all of you - be good to each other. It's a short life. Don't piss it away. 

Liberal Gun Stores

I just responded to someone who had a question for me: 

"Are there any Liberal Gun Shops you know of?"

The short answer: No.

The long answer: Yes, but you will never find them.

As with a number of the folks - People on the Political Left who like our guns - I learned a long time ago that there are times it is better just to bite my lip, nod, and say, "Yep, you got that right." or similar when someone refers to how "Libtards", "Hillary and all of those other lesbians in government", and "Obummer" are ruining America. Why did I suck it up? Well, a wife and two kids... and a job that was GREATLY tied to the firearms world (Lots of gun show trips - including to the Shot Show). I lost track of the number of conversations I was party to in which I had to hear comments suggesting armed insurrection, assassination of government officials, guns buried in back yards, etc., ad nauseum. About as far as I went was to reply to chain emails with, "You know, that story doesn't sound totally accurate... You might want to doublecheck that..." As a case in point of what can happen, I offer Dan Cooper of Montana. Mr. Cooper started his company in Stevensville, Montana, building custom bolt-action firearms that most shooters can't afford. If you read the history of the company, you will notice a change in ownership in 2009. This change in ownership came as a result of Cooper making the conscious decision to support a political campaign. The kicker is that he donated to the presidential campaign of then-Senator Barack Obama. When this became public knowledge, the company was inundated with phone calls, faxes, emails, and letters demanding that Cooper be separated from the company he started (and that most of these people had never heard of and would not buy from in the first place). There is also the case of Jim Zumbo, but I will let you research that one yourself. So. What does this have to do with the question? Only everything. As a result of the gun community's willingness to eat their own, Liberal-leaning folks in the gun business have to keep it on the down-low. If you come out of the closet, so-to-speak, you threaten your own success. After leaving the gun position I had, I mentioned my thinking to a few friends who were still in the business. They agreed with me that if the secret had gotten out, I would likely have lost my job. From one friend: "No doubt. You would have been gone in a heartbeat." So as for Liberal Gun Shops? They are there. You just don't know it. And they won't tell you. You can make a good guess, though. Go visit some places and look around. 

Warning Signs:

• Do you see any pictures of the President with a Hitler mustache?
• How about a target reticle on his head?
• or in some sort of Middle-Eastern costume?
• How about targets with non-descript Middle-Eastern men on them?
• Targets with Democratic politicians on them (including the sitting President)?
• Confederate Flags?
• Tea Party ("Don't Tread on Me") flags? 
• Racist jokes about the president taped to the counter or posted on the bulletin board?
• Misogynist jokes about Hillary Clinton taped to the counter or posted on the bulletin board?

Now. If there is a lack of these, it may infer a lack of Conservative leaning. However, a store with a lot of this may be attempting to overcompensate. You will have to be the judge. Just keep in mind that regardless of the owner's politics, most of the staff and most of the clientele will not be voting a straight-ticket for the Democrats. So if you drive up in a Prius with a Hope sticker on the bumper while wearing a 'Feel the Bern' shirt and making comments deriding the Stars-and-Bars behind the counter, prepare to be given a hard time, refused service and told to leave, or even escorted off for trespassing. You are the enemy to a lot of these folks and part of why their country is having problems. Or you can just go to Cabela's or Bass Pro and avoid all of the overt politics (while having to endure walking past the Southern Kitsch decorations).

Pedantistry

Is that a word?

No, but it should be.

Intersections

My last post mentioned some of my interests. Based on the title of the page (and this post and this post) you can guess I am into guns, as well. I'm also into cars. I'm not a gearhead or grease monkey, by any means. I just like cars.

Well, I like cars I can't afford. And I like listening to bumbling, sarcastic Brits prattling on about said cars I can't afford. So, naturally, I watch Top Gear.

And while Jeremy Clarkson may take the piss out of James May for getting overly pedantic regarding cars, engineering, physics, and design, it is entertaining because they DO IT TO BE ENTERTAINING. They are in on the joke. They expect you to be in on the joke. They expect the audience to understand the humor of a scraggly-haired car nerd at a white board describing the innards of a hovercraft.

Another example of Top Gear acknowledging their personal foibles is Clarkson going on about power, speed, and guns in his exuberant, pseudo-jingoistic manner (imagine a twelve-year-old with a monster truck fitted with rocket launchers and you will have a good idea).

Where I come to the point

So, I happen across a Top Gear video of Clarkson and May racing sport wagons on a biathlon course because of course they will. As part of this race, they do the shooting element of the course, firing the prone targets from inside the back of the car because of course they will. Clarkson, however, forgoes the standard Anschutz for a Heckler & Koch MP5 submachinegun because of course he does. 

Let the theatrics commence. I can wait. 

I showed the video to a friend. This led to questions about biathlon rifles. This led to biathlon, itself. I then happened across a great video produced by Sturm, Ruger & Co. Featuring Annelies Cook from the US biathlon team, the video shows a typical biathlon rifle and the use of it, including the unslinging and slinging (watch all of the various manual checks and manipulation a of covers).  There is some awesome footage of the shooters, proper form, and discussions of how they do what they do.

Really good stuff there.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...

A mantra of mine regarding YouTube: 

do not read the comments.

do not read the comments.

do not read the comments.

After viewing this video, I accidentally neglected my mantra. And this one time, it was gold.

Gun Guys in the audience will recognize some incorrect usage (clips, bullets, shells, and the like). As can be expected, some of "those guys" make an appearance on the comments lamenting the use of perceived incorrect terminology, America's lackluster biathlon performance in the Olympics, and what can only be described as a cross between "kids these days" and "get off my lawn!"

One of my fave Gun Guys - Steve Fjestad from Blue Book Publications

During my time as the Curator of the Cody Firearms Museum, one of my favorite activities was talking to Gun Guys. One of my least favorite activities was talking to Gun Guys...

The following dialogue from the YouTube comments on the Biathlon video (screen-capped for posterity) made my day. It involves BOTH types of gun guys.

David W. is my new Hero of the Interwebz.

He used his wittiness, knowledge, and snark to defend against the demons of pedantistry. As another associated the woman's use of firearms terminology with reasons behind how America sucks at biathlon, David W. kept his calm and poked the troll in such a manner that he started using all sorts of unrelated arguments (the supposed wealth of Olympians, his military experience, and the use of the word 'Libtard' - the hallmark of all well-planned defenses).

David W. won the internet.

In search of a common language

While watching this discourse, I began to ask myself why we cannot progress beyond this argument of pedantic terminology. I remember getting into arguments about this more than three decades ago - as a GRADE SCHOOLER!

I think we are at a point in the shooting world at which we can recognize that language is malleable. Language changes. Language moves. Language bends. Language becomes new.

Yes. A magazine and a clip are, pedantically, two different things.

Yes. A bullet and a shell and a cartridge are all different things.

But people (most people) use them interchangeably. Most of us (students of firearms history and related esoterica) prevent ourselves from getting the vapors when we hear someone describe how they load bullets into a clip. We stop ourselves from hollering at people "It's a Magazine!!!"

You should too.

Manliness and California

OK. I have stayed silent on this long enough.*

I have known too many women who have been the recipient of mistreatment, negative attention, slut-shaming, and harassment, at best; abuse, violence, and rape, at worst. This is not the result of their actions as people. This is the result of the choices of others. These choices deriving from a belief that women should bend to their will and be the object of whatever attention the others choose to give.

I have known too many 'men' who act like this because we are still raised that women are chattel and somehow become our property once we enter into any sort of a relationship. (I use 'men' in quotes simply to denote that I do believe 'manliness' is very much a concept that drives a lot of this behavior)

I am hacked off at any of the attempts I have seen to make it sound like all men are guilt-free because "it wasn't us, it was him" (check out #notallmen on Twitter). Bullshit.

It was us. We may have not pulled the trigger, but it was us who allow others to act this way. The same self-perpetuating nonsense allows white men (of which I am one) to continue to fail to realize that we ARE a privileged group. This is not a case of white guilt, male guilt, or any other guilt. This is an acknowledgement that there are differences within our society - differences in how we are treated.

I have never been singled out by a cop, a clerk, or anyone else because of my skin, my sex, my dress, or my mannerisms. I have never had to be in fear of my safety because someone had any sort of intentions, sexual or otherwise. I never had to worry about how I dressed and how that would make others perceive me other than in a business sense.

I have been guilty of ogling and making assumptions of women due to their dress and actions. I have been guilty of making advances that were unwanted. After reflection, I realized I was in the wrong. That may have been years ago and miles away, but there are still people who still may feel the effects of  my actions and words. That is where my guilt lies.

What I can do now is show others that it is not OK to let this slide.

A boy in California (yes, I will call him a boy) was turned down by girls. In response to this, he decided he had to go on a shooting spree.

I know he had issues. I know he needed help. However, despite what some pundits have proposed, he didn't need to get laid - or, interpreted in another way, none of the women in his life needed to give in to his desires and give him what he apparently felt he deserved.

If a woman says she does not want you in that way: Let. It. Go.

If she wants to be 'friends': Be. Her. Friend.

Just because you want something and you do not get it, whether a look, a word, a kiss, a feel, or more, it does not mean she is a bitch, a tease, or any of a number of worse words. She is being a person with every right to control what happens to her being. If you choose to act in a manner that forces her to unwillingly give up this control, you are the one in the wrong.

If you are preventing someone from exercising their control over themselves (or you are enabling this), you are part of the problem. You do not have the right to someones agency. You have not "put in the hours". You have not "earned it".

You only have to acknowledge that the issue may not be with them. The issue may be with you.

Either way, driving around town with a gun and bad intent is not an appropriate response.

---

* Although I do discuss a male-female power relationship in this post, this type of situation can be present in any type of relationship, whether straight, gay, or otherwise. In all of these relationships, believing others are less can only lead to bad things. All of this article is a poorly-written attempt to straighten out some of this view in my own head. I can't guarantee any logical clarity or simplicity of view.