Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan) header
Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan) profile picture

Zionist Gentile. Proud Dad. Lucky Husband. Flawed Christian. Fellow at the Wuhan Institute of Kalashnikov Studies. #SalsaPrivilege #BlackGunsMatter #1A #2A

Lower Pennsyltuckey, USA
Joined November 2008
Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)Photo by Daniel Paddock (@UndeadDan)
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Replying to @Scoped4wg
MORE KILLING BUGS AND COLONIZING PLANETS! LESS FUCKING SYNPATHIZING WITH THE BUGS! The only good bug is a dead bug!
3
1
21
285
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Replying to @Magnus_9_IOI
Also why women misinterpret the relationships men form in the trenches. It reads as romance to people who don’t understand how shared purpose against extreme odds binds people.
1
7
103
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Probably the reason why everyone's talking past one another is that some people (mostly male) want to read books about something and most people (mostly female) want to read books about someone. So if you absolutely *must* make some kind of generalization, then this is closer to the truth: * Boys don't care what the protagonist looks like as long as they're doing something interesting. * Girls don't care what the story is about as long as the protagonist is someone interesting. This is why the "boys won't read girl characters" argument is dumb. Because boys don't care about the sex of the character, they care about what they're doing. If they're doing something that bores the boy, he's not going to read it. While the average girl isn't going to read a story about a protagonist they can't imagine either being best friends with, or being worst enemies with.
36
42
9
367
9,240
I’ve noticed a lot of women in this reading debate seem focused on demographic justice when the whole point is just getting boys to read more Y’all are being really weird for that
52
161
8
2,092
27,124
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Cho Chang is a perfectly normal and beautiful Chinese name and I’m honestly tired of having to explain this repeatedly. I came across another post criticising her name, so let’s clear up the actual linguistic and cultural context behind it. "Chang" is the standard romanisation of the surname 張 in Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking regions outside Mainland China (where it's spelled "Zhang" in Pinyin, or "Chong" and "Cheong" in Singapore and Malaysia). It is the third most common surname in Taiwan, the fourth most common in Mainland China, and is also widely used in Korea. (Chang and Cheung are also Cantonese romanisations of the surname 章.) "Cho" is the Hong Kong Cantonese romanisation for several characters commonly used in given names: • 秋 — "Autumn" or a plentiful harvest • 卓 — "Excellence," "brilliance," or "outstanding" (also a surname) • 楚 — "Clarity," "well-dressed," or "a lovely lady" • 早 — "Morning" Her official Chinese translation is 張秋—"Autumn Chang." I actually knew a girl in primary school with that exact name and spelling when the Harry Potter movies were coming out. She was so disappointed when Pottermore sorted her into Hufflepuff instead of Ravenclaw! Growing up, I also had a headcanon that Cho was a Hongkonger whose family moved to the UK before the 1997 Handover. Emigrating to the UK due to the worsening political climate was very common for Hong Kong families in the 80s and 90s. I’ve never heard anyone who speaks Chinese or grew up in a Chinese-speaking country criticise her name. Cho Chang is widely loved there—the only real complaints are about her lack of characterisation or that she didn't end up with Harry. I didn't even know people disliked her name until I moved to an English-speaking country for university. (Note: All spellings above follow the Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation system, which you can easily look up for exact phonetics.)
213
382
85
5,483
441,037
I read 50 Shades of Grey and now I have multiple restraining orders against me. Instructions unclear. Please advise.
Replying to @_mariaslibrary_
But hey maybe if you read a good romance book by a female author you'll learn how to treat women right!
17
56
1
1,026
8,892
Daniel Paddock retweeted
There's a double standard at the core of the "books for boys" discourse that's so severe yet unchallenged that it's making me feel crazy. When mostly boys like a book, that means the book is bad/oppressive to girls. When mostly girls like a book, the fact that boys don't like it is proof that something is wrong with the boys.
The first novel I ever loved was the survival classic Hatchet, but recently I’ve learned that a *lot* of women despise this book, and see it is as something they were forced to read in school to entice the idiot illiterate boys in their English class. I dove into that tension!
143
707
48
9,606
247,983
Replying to @planefag
As a teacher I find this maddening and exhausting. I teach high school. Do you want to know how I get boys to read? It's a huge secret, but I'll share: Stories like "The Sniper," lots of Roman Empire stuff with the Stoics & Julius Caesar; lots of adventure and sruvival stories ("To Build a Fire"). LOTS of sci-fi stories (Bradbury is a staple in my class) and even the occasional screenplay of a Twilight Zone episode ("Monsters are Due on Maple Street.") Poems like "If" and "The Highwayman," boys eat up that kind of doomed romance when the guy is a badass and has dueling pistols. But ma'am, you're saying. Aren't you just reinforcing the gender binary by giving boys things they like to read? Yes. Yes I am. Because they're boys, not defective girls. They have to sit through some things they don't like, sure- but so do the girls. These women just don't like boys or men. They think they are defective girls. I teach K-6 for summer school and remediation- ON THE PLAYGROUND at FIVE YEARS OLD the boys are collecting sticks to fight dragons and the girls are climbing on the jungle gym so the boys can come rescue them from the dragons. Nothing would reinforce the gender binary for these crazy people so fast as watching a group of about 30 kids playing. NOBODY TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO. One of the most popular boys at summer school this year? What did he do? He gathered up like 15 sticks on the playground and he gave some to his buddies, then he gave some to the girls so they could defend their castle till the dragon was slain. I say again, BOYS ARE NOT DEFECTIVE GIRLS. They have their own stuff going on, man. These women shouldn't be anywhere near educating children because THEY HATE 50% OF CHILDREN.
9
14
2
153
4,534
Daniel Paddock retweeted
I am getting profoundly sick of women (many of whom possess advanced degrees in subjects that require several years of graduate study) who hate stwelve-year-old boys, explaining to the rest of civilization how we need to relate to them. Now, before anyone gets carried away, I am also a woman. I have been one for more than fifty years. I was never a boy. I am a tomboy, which means I spent a fair amount of my childhood doing things that would cause a modern Gender Studies department to call an emergency faculty meeting. The difference is that I don't have a PhD in anything, (worthless or otherwise) so I haven't developed the intellectual confidence necessary to believe I know absolutely everything. I'm kind of dumb that way. For example, I have this radical theory that boys should be encouraged to read whatever the hell interests them. For a great many boys, this will be... (Please sit down. This may be upsetting.) BOY STUFF. Sports! Soldiers! Hunting! Explosions! Airplanes! Tanks! Dinosaurs eating other dinosaurs! Some boys will prefer chemistry or astronomy. Some will love cooking. Some will be fascinated by fashion. Some will want to read about ballet, and some will want to read about a Sherman tank driving through a ballet recitle while firing its main gun at a home ec class. THIS IS FINE. Nobody is proposing that we issue every male child a football, a rifle, and a copy of The Art of War at birth, then arrest him if he expresses an interest in soufflés. We're suggesting that if you want boys to read, it might help to give them books about things they actually want to read about. They probably know what interests them better than the woman who spent 8 yearas at university, and written tons of papers about how awful men and boys are. I realize this is a controversial educational theory, requiring another $400 million in federal research grants. But here's something else I've noticed. Whenever the subject of boys comes up, an astonishing number of women immediately begin explaining how boys need to be understood, engaged, reimagined, reconstructed, and possibly returned to the manufacturer for a firmware update. You know who might have some useful insight into what it's like to be a boy? MEN. Yes! MEN! Those strange, hairy creatures who were (in most cases) ACTUALLY BOYS at one point! I know. It's an outrageous suggestion. Now, being a woman, I don't have firsthand experience with boyhood. But I've discovered this remarkable intellectual technique called LISTENING TO PEOPLE WHO DO. It's fascinating. You ask someone about their experiences, and then (and this is the really important part) you SHUT UP long enough to hear the answer. Sometimes you even learn something. One thing I've learned is that a great many boys enjoy traditionally masculine things. Not all boys. Not every boy. Not every minute of every day. But enough boys that pretending otherwise requires a level of deliberate obtuseness normally associated with government procurement. Thank you for attending my TED Talk. That'll be $650. I'm kidding. It's free. I haven't figured out how to get a university to pay me for stating the obvious. I'm not a Democrat anymore. But seriously. We've spent two generations "rethinking how we engage with boys." Judging by the educational and social problems facing young men, I think we're entitled to ask whether some of that rethinking has been an enormous, expensive failure. Maybe it's time to stop treating ordinary boyhood like a defective social construct requiring professional intervention. Maybe it's time to let Grandpa, who was once a boy himself, take the kids fishing. Or shooting. Or teach them how to rebuild a carburetor, throw a football, or make something useful with their hands. And if one of those boys wants to learn ballet or bake a cake instead? LET HIM. MAYBE THEN we can find someone (most likely a woman) to help him otu. That's the entire point! Give boys opportunities. Give them books. Give them good male role models. Let them discover their interests without turning every preference into an ideological emergency. And for the love of everything holy, STOP ACTING LIKE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT BOYS AND GIRLS OFTEN HAVE DIFFERENT INTERESTS IS SOME KIND OF CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. I'm not suggesting women have nothing useful to contribute to raising or educating boys. I'm suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, we should spend a little less time lecturing men about what boys need, and a little more time asking men what being a boy was actually like. It's a crazy idea, I know. But after fifty years on this planet, I'm beginning to suspect that the people who insist they know the most about boys are frequently the people least interested in listening to them.
We are going to have a fundamental difference of opinion if you think the answer to boys not reading is to write about “boy stuff” and not rethink how we engage with boys in general let alone as readers. No specific interest or taste should be placed on a gender binary!!!
249
637
66
5,487
148,586
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Save that a bad teacher can ruin in a semester what a parent can spend a lifetime to build. My brother and I were raised avid readers - school made him hate it. didn't read for pleasure again for a decade. My son is 3 and adores books more than toys. I worry that can be undone.
Replying to @SCWKorsgaard
You say this like it’s anyone’s responsibility besides parents to instill a love of reading into a child. If you want your son to love reading, teach him to do so. Idk why you would expect “society” to do this for you.
4
18
158
1,815
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Boys: We want books about adventures, quests, and survival! Librarians: May I interest you in some romantasy? It’s enemies to lovers with fairies! Boys: *plays video games instead*
580
845
488
13,930
965,637
Daniel Paddock retweeted
We do not sponsor or support the “I’ve Had It” podcast. We unequivocally condemn violence in all forms. The comments made by the hosts do not reflect Chewy’s values or what we stand for as a company.
9,562
5,389
2,112
68,736
11,185,390
Daniel Paddock retweeted
@BollAndBranch has said they are NOT sponsors currently and have no plans to be. They issued a tweet about it.
1
8
93
2,314
Daniel Paddock retweeted
An unfortunate development for Salon’s reader. The button was right there.
Today, after 31 years, we are saddened to announce that Salon is ceasing publication. It has been an extraordinary privilege. salon.com/2026/11/05/goodbye…
81
193
24
2,399
101,293
Daniel Paddock retweeted
I’m still very proud of choosing her as my 2024 write-in vote for president. She would make a far better leader than the joker we have right now.
The biggest lesson is that when Republicans stay close to our policies of economic freedom, lower taxes, and smaller government, we win. We need to return to that, stop the distractions, and get back to work for the American people.
105
39
3
723
8,969
This is a huge part of the problem. I am obviously not a “commie,” & have spent quite literally my entire career speaking against socialism & in favor of the free market. Smearing anyone who won’t lie to you to make you feel better as a “commie” gets you last night.
2
1
11
381
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Sure, this is the biggest wipeout in 100 years, and the Democrats are going to control Congress, but they can't stop Trump from pointing at things and renaming them, and at the end of the day, that's what he truly loves the most. So checkmate, Libs.
37
162
8
1,817
49,836
Daniel Paddock retweeted
The one thing we can count on, regardless of tonight’s results, is that absolutely no one will engage in any meaningful self-reflection.
31
101
10
898
16,610
Daniel Paddock retweeted
the republicans were handed the country on a silver platter for the first time in a long time culturally & politically and basically did nothing with it except bomb iran. historical fumble.
1,488
6,775
300
100,599
1,174,138
Daniel Paddock retweeted
Back when I was in elementary school there was this girl who was INCAPABLE of comprehending the idea of borrowing and regrouping when doing subtraction. Just COULD NOT do it. Whatever part of your brain is dedicated to borrowing and regrouping was missing from her head. I'm not talking about first grade, I'm talking like she couldn't do it in FIFTH GRADE. She still can't do it so far as I know. Anyway we're facebook friends now and she voted.
35
38
2
898
20,194