|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote:
No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread?
He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God".
Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life.
What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this.
|
On May 26 2014 14:13 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 13:54 Durp wrote:
Part of the problem is in the assumption that people need to date "within their level" Levels are purely subjective, and imo it's the blind acceptance of "leagues and levels" that lead to this mentality of sexual entitelement- not the fact that women control the dating pool.
That's very true. But I know I'm probably repeating myself here, but I still think it is "easier" for women to date men that are "naturally" out of their league than it is for men to date women that are "naturally" out of their league.
Amass money, get nubile and attractive women. It's that easy.
/sarcasm
|
There is no such thing as "out of league". You either have traits that are desirable to your partner or you don't. The sooner people recognize that, the easier their dating life will be.
|
this question might've been asked million times, but why america allows more than 1 gun? Or machine guns, or assault rifles? I understand the concept of right to able to defend yourslef. But if you need so many weapons to defend its highly likely that you're already dead. I don't get the logic.
|
On May 26 2014 17:18 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote:
No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread?
He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God".
Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life. What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this.
No sure, I'm probably going nowhere with this.
The thought is that if you are prone to have self-reinforcing thoughts about feeling like God and killing other people it helps to have a father that has made movies about that kind of stuff.
Anyway, for me it's kind of hard to believe that this guy didn't have ANY success with girls.
He is relatively good looking after all.
|
or am I missing something?
yup, about 8000 years of gendered oppression and the cultures, traditions and narratives that has left behind. So, yes, in theory they have equal rights, but the history of inequality is still there and so those rights are neither wholly upheld or supported by society. It's a similar situation to the plight of black americans. In theory they have equal rights, but the history of slavery, segregation and white supremacy means that actually doesn't mean everything is fine now.
America has to be conscientious every day in order to escape the shadow of racism (as do most other western societies TBH). In the same way, we need to be conscientious every day to escape the shadow of the treatment of women as barely better than property at best, not even really human at worst.
|
On May 26 2014 17:35 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 17:18 SlixSC wrote:On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote:
No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread?
He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God".
Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life. What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this. No sure, I'm probably going nowhere with this. The thought is that if you are prone to have self-reinforcing thoughts about feeling like God and killing other people it helps to have a father that has made movies about that kind of stuff. Anyway, for me it's kind of hard to believe that this guy didn't have ANY success with girls. He is relatively good looking after all.
He wasn't a troll, and he had money, but just watching his 5 minute rant it's plainly obvious why he's never had any success with girls. He's absolutely insufferable in a video I couldn't imagine spending any amount of time with him and not wanting to run away tearing my eyes out. Even if you take away his clear mental illness his mannerisms and personality alone make him entirely unfuckable by anyone with self respect.
|
I think PUA is attractive to many because it provides a limited frame of mind that seems to empower an individual in the short term though it inevitably will dis-empower them in the long term. This even extends to the "good" PUA companies that preach self-improvement based rhetoric and try to convince you that you are a flawed individual and must also repair yourself outside of sexual conquest (though sexual exploits with attractive women is still the only way to measure yourself in their system).
I was obsessed with PUA until I lost both my virginity and the exacerbated preoccupation with being a virgin that had accompanied it. Shortly after that PUA lost its appeal entirely. Looking at some of the "field reports" I wrote at the time I am really shocked and humbled by the fact that I so easily and eagerly allowed myself to get sucked into an ideological system that dis-empowered myself and my ability to connect with other people. I hope any in this thread that have dabbled into it will reconsider the direction they are going.
|
On May 26 2014 17:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:yup, about 8000 years of gendered oppression and the cultures, traditions and narratives that has left behind. So, yes, in theory they have equal rights, but the history of inequality is still there and so those rights are neither wholly upheld or supported by society. It's a similar situation to the plight of black americans. In theory they have equal rights, but the history of slavery, segregation and white supremacy means that actually doesn't mean everything is fine now. America has to be conscientious every day in order to escape the shadow of racism (as do most other western societies TBH). In the same way, we need to be conscientious every day to escape the shadow of the treatment of women as barely better than property at best, not even really human at worst.
Thinking of gender history as the oppression of one gender by the other is more than a little misleading. Throughout history women have largely been denied to hold positions of power and meaningful responsibility, and men have been made to fight and die and perform backbreaking physical labour based on their gendered ability to do so. Men have always been the legitimate targets aswell as the perpetrators of violence, and men have done their best to shield their women from it. Women were a class that lacked many rights, but also the unpleasant obligations, and enjoyed a protected status that was not extended to men
There are no cultures that unambiguously treated their women as chattle. Respect for women as more gentle and nurturing than men is universal. Male gods were feared, but godesses were worshiped, most notably by soldiers who most commonly prayed to mother type godesses including the christian Mary.
We are a species that naturally and perhaps unrightfully assigns profound meaning to the concept of gender. Not as one being unambiguously better than the other, but as having different roles. I think comparing gender discrimination to slavery and white supremacy is wrong not just because of difference in impact but because they are different kinds of things entirely. I agree that to overcome gender issues we must be conscientious, but that is not achieved by adopting the feminist narrative that can turn the actions of a deranged individual into an event that serves their agenda.
|
Quite interesting to see that he didn't try to kill male people. If he was only jealous he would have targeted them first. It is very telling... women got the power nowadays and his frustration was directed toward them.
|
United States42884 Posts
He stabbed his three male roommates to death first, before he went out and tried to shoot anybody. Men were shot in the spree as well.
|
Thinking of gender history as the oppression of one gender by the other is more than a little misleading. Throughout history women have largely been denied to hold positions of power and meaningful responsibility, and men have been made to fight and die and perform backbreaking physical labour based on their gendered ability to do so
Oppression is artificially denying a group the chance for self determination. It doesn't matter if I keep you in a room, shield you from every threat and give you your every heart's desire except the freedom to leave the room, I am still oppressing you.
As you say, not every society treated women as chattel, but as you say, every society (well, a vast, vast majority) constructed a female ideal that was ultimately subservient to male power (thanks to men's ability to simply kill/torture anyone who tried to resist that power). Women couldn't, say, carry weapons to fend off male aggressors, defend their persons as a group (literally band together and stab anyone who tried to make them do something), or organize their own political groups to advance their own interests and freedoms. In some societies this was enacted through fear, in others through guilt, in others simply through literally locking women into a building and not letting them outside where they could learn anything other than what society wanted them to. In all though, men, or women acting on behalf of male-approved systems, would excise those who did not conform. In the majority of cases, this excision was so brutal that I can guarantee you would not sleep again soundly in your life if you witnessed it happen to someone.
I empathize with the idea that men have done an insane amount of suffering and dying to maintain these ideals which are in part perpetrated by women who are comfortable with the system (or at least jealous of anyone who doesn't have to go through the same oppression). But this is not, N. O. T, a 'trade in' scenario. You don't get to say 'well, I locked you in a room, but I brought you everything you wanted and you're ungracious enough to ask to leave the room where you're going to get raped by dickwolves? I sweated for years, sacrificed all my other pursuits to bring you all this stuff, I think you owe me at least just to be happy to sit in the room so I don't gotta save your ass'. As I'm sure you recognize, that's basically the essence of male entitlement and why it is utter bunk.
The concept of oppression does not give a two bit fuckpenny about how much sweat and blood and tears you expended to make the oppression more bearable. It's still oppression. It's still pure ethical poison, however you dress it up.
I think comparing gender discrimination to slavery and white supremacy is wrong not just because of difference in impact but because they are different kinds of things entirely. I agree that to overcome gender issues we must be conscientious, but that is not achieved by adopting the feminist narrative that can turn the actions of a deranged individual into an event that serves their agenda.
I actually agree with this. Feminists using this event to attack the male population at large are abhorrent (and I'm not doing that, rather responding to other assumptions made here). However I don't see how you can say that the oppression of the other (in this case other races) is fundamentally different to the oppression of women. Superficially different, but you're going to have to elaborate on what the fundamental difference is that means we need to look at the two using separate frameworks.
Quite interesting to see that he didn't try to kill male people. If he was only jealous he would have targeted them first. It is very telling... women got the power nowadays and his frustration was directed toward them.
He murdered three men in his apartment before he went on the spree.
|
Oh yea i missed that lol. I'm reading his manifesto and it seems that he is actually quite angry towards males too.
|
On May 26 2014 16:25 Thereisnosaurus wrote:The rest was good, this is not so good. I've never heard a non-massively-privileged argument explaining how women control the 'dating pool'. Women have more power over who they choose as partners than they used to, but that's all, and given they used to have next to none, that's not saying a whole lot. Not asking for a giant rebuttal here, just saying that could have been a little better worded, it's hard to let comments like that stand without question.
Fair point, and that statement was poorly worded I totally agree.
I think what I was getting at is the shift in the social dating paradigm. Women still go out to impress men, that point can't be disputed, but I'd argue that the overriding belief in dating currently is that the man must impress the woman, to the point that he rises above his other male competitors. If he does so, the woman will accept him, and the interaction can progress. I'd say this is the opposite of the vast, vast majority of human history in which a woman was (generalization) subject to the wants and interests of a man.
ie. A woman 50 years ago waited to be accepted and pursued by a man, she settled down, and started a family. Divorce was taboo, especially if filed by the woman. A woman now can wade through several suitors until she finds one she deems worthy of herself. She holds the (objective) power in the relationship, as (imo) society has shifted to a state where the man must "earn" the woman. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but I think the nature of the dating dynamic rests these days on the demands and desires of the female as opposed to the male.
|
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
|
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote:
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
|
@SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
My family is the opposite.
+ Show Spoiler +
We had a family and it was the fault of my dad (he was abusive at times and had an affair).
After the divorce, we moved and went through a few apartments until we managed to afford a house about 5 years after the divorce.
My mom has done a lot for the family (and even does the dirty work such as going up the roof, painting, worrying about mold, going under the house to check for rusted pipes, cleaning dirt from under the house cleaning mold, etc).
Also she has still stayed single to this day (worrying more about the family than guys). She is in her 50s right now and my parents divorced over 20 years ago.
She is happy for the family and she has no regrets.
"And" I have another example.
+ Show Spoiler +
One of my aunts is the same way too.
I won't describe the specifics but my uncle had to go away for 4-5 years (and it didn't involve making money).
My aunt had to raise my two cousins alone (they're both younger than me) but she managed to pull through.
She also had a job (actually she always had a job to be fair).
Anyway, fast forward to just recently and my uncle is now back. They're still together and she still cares for him (despite for something that had him have to go away) and also despite the fact he cannot get a job anymore basically (records).
She is now the sole provider for the family. They're still together despite what happened.
She could have left him and found someone else (my uncle didn't have any family he knew or anyone to blame us if she did) but she didn't.
There are tons of families that breakup for various reasons. Your reason is only one case (which in this case, appears to be the fault of your mom) and that case shouldn't be used to generalize.
I hope my two family stories will help change your view a bit.
On May 26 2014 17:12 boon2537 wrote:
Regarding sexual equality in dating, I feel the main imbalance is that the reasons why girls are attracted to guys are not that intuitive to most guys, and some guys have to change the way they think in order to not get depressed when they want to start the dating game. For a girl to attract guys, in most cases, she only has to look attractive. This is especially unfair to girls who are not born with good face and body, as they will have to put in a lot of work to their body to live up a social standard and attract the best possible guy. When you ask sexually frustrated guys: what attracts girls? They would say money, nice car, having a six-pack, something along these line. Those extrinsic qualities do help, but some sexually frustrated guys don't realize that intrinsic values like confidence, humor, a feeling of self-worth, knowing how to accept rejection are much more important. Even if they do realize it, it is much harder to work on your intrinsic values than putting on make ups. The idea of self improvement is probably the best thing to take away from the PUA community. Personally, this imbalance makes me feel fortunate that I'm a male because if I continuously work hard and improve my mindset, somewhere along the way, I can find the girl of my dream.
I have to agree. Looks is definitely the first impression one usually gets. However, a lot of girls care more about (or they will eventually care more about) those intrinsic qualities as you said.
+ Show Spoiler +
I remember reading a site and going to a site for guys needing help getting girls. It was a forum for shy guys.
One post I read disgusted me and put me off from that site.
There was a girl who joined and asked advice in getting a shy guy (at work) to like him.
Every few days, she would post her progress and ask for more advice.
After about a few pages of discussion, etc...
Long story short was that people said maybe she was ugly and guys want pretty girls (I remember hearing this was sad by a mod too).
And the next few posts didn't disagree or provide an alternative (no one said "maybe he's just not interested").
That post disgusted me (because it was on a forum where guys basically whine about not having girls... correction - they whine about not having pretty girls).
And let me say that the posts there, most guys were kind of entitled and liked to play "the victim". Now, I'm sure there are many people that go through a stage like that (then experience it throughout) but it is important to know it can only be just a stage and temporary. A lot of what people think about their own feelings and emotions is incorrect at times.
People have a great capability to change perspective on things and when they do, they'll find they'll react and feel to a lot of things much differently. At least for me, I've found it really helpful.
Anyway, back me complaining about that site.
I know lots of girls who don't have anyone.
Why? Because there aren't as pretty as other girls.
To be fair, I don't know the specifics of every guy but I know a few girls myself.
How many guys out there with no girls, are they looking for every girl or only a select few girls (based only on appearance)?
At least for me, I do know a few girls who want guys but they aren't as pretty as other girls.
Another thing to note + Show Spoiler +is that girls are more passive while guys are more on the initiative when it comes to the dating game.
For a girl to want to be someone, they want to know more about them and that usually involves getting to be with and know a person a lot.
While guys, if a girl looks pretty, they go for them.
And if a guy approaches a girl like they usually accept if they seem like a nice guy and (and if this is a date or something) a good looking guy.
The reason is because it's a good way to start knowing someone.
What I'm saying is... it's really competitive (between the guys).
However, whether those relationship stays is another different story.
The problem is, a lot of people look it like that. The thing is, most girls want to really know someone and if they know someone they like, they then go for it (while guys go for it first on looks).
In my experiences (there are a few girls I know that want me...) one way to get a girl is to first be friends with them and be as good as friend as possible and as long as possible.
This may mean in some future, you may get that girl (bonus points if they broke up with someone who was bad to them and you were the guy that she talked to).
Of course cases like those aren't quick but they're doable.
Again, I can't speak for everyone but I think one problem is that some guys only look at things one way.
Also, I'll talk about my own experiences (and in response to how the person acted).
I've been through a stage where I was jealous and I wanted a girl (a friend) to be with me or do things with me all the times. I got mad and in general, the emotions "seemed right" but it was wrong (and definitely wrong once I received it on the receiving end).
Sometimes, you may feel emotions but a lot of the times there is a way for you to think clearly.
I've played an MMO once and I played as a girl and I always said that I was a girl IRL (whenever I asked). (I was playing a girl character and I didn't want people to call me a "guy", I wanted to be called a girl , so I just said I was girl IRL since that was the easiest way.)
I've had two experiences with two separate people who got close to me and who both started talking to me first (and they were the ones who requested the friend invite first and I usually accept any friend invite).
Some people aren't as interested in the social aspect of MMOs (there are a lot of MMOs that can be enjoyed for the story or whatever and casually without even playing with anyone else for most of the time) but some people do value the social aspect a lot.
And these two people I have met were the latter it seemed (I was more the former but if people wanted to group together to do something then I usually don't mind).
Anyway, I'm a nice person and I help people a lot in MMOs.
One guy that I helped a lot got really close to me.
I don't want to get too much in to detail but they acted nice and reasonable most of the time but it wasn't reflected in what he did or say to me at times.
There were times when I didn't want to play with them and they were passive aggressive and played the victim a lot.
They tried to make me feel bad (I do take relationships in games seriously if people take them though since while it is online, they are a person and if they take it seriously, I take them seriously and I do want everyone playing games to enjoy playing the games they play).
Anyway, I tried to be as nice as possible. And I really do care about people and their feelings (if anyone knows me from the initial SC2 proleague LR threads.. I was vocal against caster bashing and negative comments and here is a post I made on the website feedback forums over a year ago about this issue when it sort of plagued the LR threads at the time).
I view myself as a very nice guy (I help and I give a lot of stuff away in the MMO I played and to these two people too) and I really do care about people's feelings (otherwise I wouldn't try so hard to defend people on the internet).
Long story short, I really understand how it is to be on the receiving end. Despite being a nice person in a game and helping out whenever possible, there were times where this person felt like just because I wasn't playing with them, then had the right to say negative things or try to make me feel bad or whatever false assumptions.
Sometimes you think of reasons why a girl isn't spending time with you or whatever. Then you become jealous or hurt. Some cases are legit but others may be just in your mind.
From my two experiences with two people pretending to be a girl in an MMO...
I find that people may think they're nice or reasonable but when they act a certain way (like when they think the most important thing is for me to always spend time with them in game, and if I don't, they suddenly get offended, hurt, and then try to make me feel bad), do they think that's desirable in any relationship and do they think what they're doing is really caring for the other person (when they say "they do care", is doing or acting that way really caring about the person)?
It's not and from these two experiences (and from my own experience with a girl myself), I find that a lot of people hurt themselves by acting that way (then assuming negative things when things don't go their way).
And if anyone is curious, no I didn't RP as a girl IRL or anything, I just said I was a girl IRL (and only if they asked) and left it at that. I didn't talk or do anything that even involves anything related to me IRL outside of that (that's why I didn't think it was relevant if I just said I was a girl IRL; again, I just wanted to be called a girl in game since I played a girl character and I thought I should just say I am a girl IRL, and I only said it if anyone asked me + I also left it there and went no further in regards to any RL discussions about me, even if they wanted more details). I was playing casually and only talked to them when they talked to me and it was basically really casual level. I pretended to be a girl but I was only doing my own thing (outside of pretending to be a girl, I acted normal for someone who wants to play a game to just play a game... play the game. I act nice whenever possible).
Again, I did take friendships online seriously though (especially if they take it seriously). So, if they needed someone to talk to, I would talk to them (though I didn't talk about my own RL stuff, I did listen and tried to cheer them up and I also played with them). If they wanted help with something, I would help. What I didn't want was them to be passive aggressive towards me or try to make me feel bad whenever I didn't want to group with them to do something one day (I group up with them if there was something that required two or more people to do. When something can be done solo, I usually didn't group too much with them if that is the case but I would still group with them if they needed someone to be and talk to them for a while).
(Also, I was the one being nice to them and helping them out but they didn't appreciate it as such or at least appreciate it through their actions and words. Instead, they ended up with a lot of negative assumptions about me whenever I didn't group up with them, which they shouldn't have had in the first place considering that I was the only usually helping them or being nice to them. When you have a friendship with someone, you don't want to assume negative things and assume they they actually don't really want to be your friend, especially if they are as nice to you as possible. I felt like with this person, they didn't respect me or my feelings yet they wanted as much as possible from me. That's not a really a friendship and that's not really caring for someone.)
Again, I didn't RP as a girl or anything those times (I just acted normally), I did let them assume I was a girl but again, I didn't think it was really relevant (and even now, if anyone asks, I still say I am a girl IRL just because I want to be called a girl when I am playing my girl character).
So when two different people suddenly act really needy and w/e all of a sudden, then they act this way towards me (again, I am nice guy in games) because they start thinking up negative assumptions whenever I don't group with them all the time...
First, you may think, they're only doing that because their RL relationships aren't great...
However, a different perspective is that maybe their RL relationships aren't great because of the way they act (and they happen to act the same way they do IRL as in an MMO).
Sometimes you have to be the girl (or pretend to be a girl or try to have the perspective of a girl) to know how it feels or how certain people can treat you a certain way.
Edit - I edited out the transwoman talk (mainly because it opens a whole nother can of worms and has its own discrimination problems).
Still though, at least in terms of social aspects (how guys can come off to girls and how girls react and how guys react to those reactions), view things from the girl side to make things a bit more understanding. Even when I only pretended to be a girl (and only because I didn't want to be called a guy by people when playing my girl character), there were times when people assumed a lot of negative things and acted unpleasantly.
The last few posts have had a bit of negativity (intended or not, it seemed negative to me) and I just wanted to address that.
Edit 2 - I updated my MMO experiences again to provide a bit more details.
|
On May 26 2014 23:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote:
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed. This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives.
What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
|
On May 26 2014 23:15 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 23:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote:
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed. This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now. Explanation and motives are 2 separate things. Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
you don't go around caring about the motives of the mentally ill. If this thing went to trial, his lawyer would probably have him go for the insanity defense, which would mean his motives were irrelevant.
|
On May 26 2014 23:41 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2014 23:15 Otolia wrote:On May 26 2014 23:01 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote:
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed. This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now. Explanation and motives are 2 separate things. Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head. you don't go around caring about the motives of the mentally ill. If this thing went to trial, his lawyer would probably have him go for the insanity defense, which would mean his motives were irrelevant.
Trials are for the pursuit of justice and not an inquiry into why something happened. And folks most certainly care for the motives of the mentally ill, they are called psychologists and there is no doubt much for them to work with in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
