|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
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.
That's not the explanation. He's mentally unstable, now what factors take his instability and put him out onto the street shooting and stabbing the people? What gave him his sense of entitlement? The misogynistic traits are pretty explainable by a read of his manifesto. But it's a matter of why his thought process was the way it was.
Which goes back to my original point: There are tons of misogynists out there. There are tons of people with an overinflated sense of entitlement. Both groups might be somewhat of a nuisance, but there's almost never a case where one of them goes on a killing spree. So why this time and not any other time? And I believe the answer to that question has nothing to do with gender issues or gun control.
|
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.
Absolutely no one in this thread is trying to make this a feminist issue. Instead a few people in this thread are expressing viewpoints that are for some reason associated with feminism to counter all of the individuals posting silly misogynistic stereotypes about women that they believe contributed to this dude's violent behavior. I also agree this is almost purely a case of mental illness.
|
This guy eerily reminds me of the killer from "In Cold Blood".
|
On May 26 2014 23:55 puppykiller 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.
Absolutely no one in this thread is trying to make this a feminist issue. Instead a few people in this thread are expressing viewpoints that are for some reason associated with feminism to counter all of the individuals posting silly misogynistic stereotypes about women that they believe contributed to this dude's violent behavior. I also agree this is almost purely a case of mental illness.
There have been a few posts suggesting that this is a feminist issue, and that viewpoint is common in feminist places on the internet. It is a fair point of discussion.
|
I guess the case is relatively similar to Brevik 3 years ago.
That is, not so much the motives themselves, but the strong, ideological, self-reinforced thinking that led to it.
Brevik first was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, but people called bullshit on that.
A second diagnosis stated that he was not psychotic, but had a Narcistic Personality Disorder (a diagnosis you can basically attest to one third of mankind).
My guess is that neither Brevik nor Rodger were mentally impaired, just like the guys responsible for 9/11 were not mentally impaired.
All they have in common is a bunch of extremely strong, self-reinforced ideologies that were thought out (using flawed reasoning) to the bitter end and an iron will to execute on them.
|
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
Oh wait...
|
On May 27 2014 00:19 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason. Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor. Oh wait...
Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states......
Oh wait....
|
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
|
I can't believe some people are actually sympathizing with him because he got 'friendzoned'. Please, go skim his 140-page manifesto and go see for yourself what kind of person Elliot Rogers was. Not him nor any other male out there is entitled to a beautiful woman, like he clearly states in both his manifesto and vlogs.
|
I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control.
But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism.
|
On May 27 2014 00:19 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason. Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor. Oh wait...
Mass shootings are on the order of 1 percent of gun violence in the USA. I don't know that this news is a platform for the gun debate. I mean, this guy stabbed 3 people, but you wouldn't use one anecdote like that as an indictment of Wal-mart for selling knives to people at literally any time they want (as Wal-mart is open 24 hours).
Definitely we'd like to connect mental health to gun ownership but it seems intrinsically hard to me - what's a way to really know someone is a psychopathic killer before they go on a killing spree? This whole thing is such a complicated issue to even think through, let alone solve in the real world.
|
On May 27 2014 00:34 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 00:19 Figgy wrote:On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason. Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor. Oh wait... Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states...... Oh wait....
Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube.
In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license.
|
On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote:I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally. Show nested quote +
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism.
You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers.
|
United States43670 Posts
On May 27 2014 00:53 LilClinkin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote:I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism. You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers.
Aspergers is no longer in the DSM.
|
On May 27 2014 00:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 00:53 LilClinkin wrote:On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote:I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism. You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers. Aspergers is no longer in the DSM.
Indeed, but only because it was merged into Autism Spectrum Disorder, a diagnosis the shooter might very likely still match.
|
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism. Which didn't make him shoot people. People with Aspergers are perfectly normal, they just have (a lot) of trouble recognizing nonverbal communications and other social interactions. It's illiteracy coupled with dyslexia for social interaction.
It probably contributed to his social isolation but he wasn't violent because of Aspergers.
Apologies if that's not what you meant, but people have a tendency to lump Aspergers together with other actually dangerous autistic and mental disorders.
|
On May 27 2014 00:50 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 00:34 FromShouri wrote:On May 27 2014 00:19 Figgy wrote:On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason. Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor. Oh wait... Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states...... Oh wait.... Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube. In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license.
There's a lot of paranoia that comes from my friends in the gun rights camp. It can be frustrating but I do my best to convince people that we need to do something about gun access to sick individuals...to no avail. There's not much logic on either side of the debate unfortunately.
|
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote:
@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.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
|
On May 27 2014 01:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 00:50 zeo wrote:On May 27 2014 00:34 FromShouri wrote:On May 27 2014 00:19 Figgy wrote:On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote:
Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac.
"You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason. Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor. Oh wait... Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states...... Oh wait.... Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube. In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license. There's a lot of paranoia that comes from my friends in the gun rights camp. It can be frustrating but I do my best to convince people that we need to do something about gun access to sick individuals...to no avail. There's not much logic on either side of the debate unfortunately.
There is, it simply gets covered up by the mountain of political bullshit that rumbles every time something involving guns happens.
|
On May 27 2014 00:59 Thorakh wrote:Which didn't make him shoot people. People with Aspergers are perfectly normal, they just have (a lot) of trouble recognizing nonverbal communications and other social interactions. It's illiteracy coupled with dyslexia for social interaction. It probably contributed to his social isolation but he wasn't violent because of Aspergers. Apologies if that's not what you meant, but people have a tendency to lump Aspergers together with other actually dangerous autistic and mental disorders.
No I did not mean that made him dangerous, and I know since I've been up for testing to see if I have it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
