Bruce didn’t say what she thought he said. She was wrong. She misinterpreted his comment. She eventually comes around to realizing that and apologizes. But not without first being wrong about what he said.

“you agree it’s a what goes around comes around deal.”

Jesus christ no. That’s not what the Golden Rule is about. That’s not what I was saying at all.

See, you agree it’s a what goes around comes around deal. ‘Show respect, get respect’ indicates causality from ‘show’ to ‘get’. That’s _exactly what she objected to Bruce seeming to say_. That is, she took Bruce’s comment to mean that the women sci-fi writers who did not get respect had failed to earn respect by being respectful themselves. That would be pretty heinous victim-blaming if that’d been what he meant, and it took context to figure out that that’s NOT what he meant – the denotative meaning was perfectly in line with it.

Nowhere was anyone stating what you interpreted her as talking about – an eye-for-an-eye deal.

Now, your post STILL wasn’t mansplaining – you were incorrect but you weren’t being dismissive on account of gender.

And the thing “privilege” compares the individuals in the majority group to are individuals in the minority group.

Sometimes it’s even harmful to the discriminator, such as refusing to lend to people who, based on legitimate criteria, are good credit risks. I’ve seen THAT happen.

we in Women’s Studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power

but men

won’t support the idea of lessening

men’s privilege, status, power, or

advantages, which men gain from women’s disadvantages

and therefore, men

are justly seen as oppressive

It can’t be any more clear than that. The invented term of “privilege” was created to present equality as a zero sum game.

I’d be fine if anything with a detachable magazine were regulated more like an NFA, at which point, the word games of assault rifle versus assault weapon become irrelevant.

htom: “Most revolvers are banned as well,”

Now you’re just being silly. I’ve said before, I don’t want to ban anything. I’m perfectly fine with belt fed machine guns being privately owned as long as they’re regulated and registered and people who have them pass background checks and such.

And revolver cylinders aren’t “removable” by any normal sense of the word. The point is to slow down reload speed.

“Most hunters use non-removable magazines? [citation required]”

Personal experience. 22 rimfire with tubular magazine. 30-30 with a tubular magazine. 30-06 with a fixed magazine. 12 guage shotgun with tubular magazine.

Yes, you COULD hunt with a removable magazine if you do the paperwork. But if a hunter is paranoid about the paperwork, they can still hunt with fixed magazine weapons.

My experience is that if you NEED a removable magazine to go hunting, then you’re probably doing it wrong. If you’ve missed after 6 shots, maybe you should take a breather and reload before trying again.

“This is a safety feature, making it easier to completely unload the firearm.”

Tubular magazines are pretty much the defacto mechanism on all shotguns, all 30-30′s, and a lot of .22 rimfire rifles (the ruger 10-22 being an famous counter example). And yes, you have to unload them one-at-a-time. It does NOT in my experience make the weapons any less safe.

http://www.thenation.com/article/171810/five-assault-rifles-you-can-pick-walmart-photos