|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
United States42886 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? Agreed. Crazy dude blames women for killing people = people talk about feminism. Crazy dude blames taco bell for killing people = People say "seems legit". When Brevik killed a bunch of schoolkids because he hated foreigners there was a discussion of nationalism. How is this any different?
|
On May 27 2014 04:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this.
I think he was just mentally insane, a narcist with a godcomplex with strong psychopathic features. He wasnt just a misogynist he hated all happy people in general because of his inability to get what he wants.
|
On May 27 2014 04:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:28 Plansix wrote:On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? Agreed. Crazy dude blames women for killing people = people talk about feminism. Crazy dude blames taco bell for killing people = People say "seems legit". When Brevik killed a bunch of schoolkids because he hated foreigners there was a discussion of nationalism. How is this any different? Its more to the point that the guy was mentally ill and he focus on feminism was almost secondary to the fact that he was sick. He could have focused on anything. The discussion on feminism is interesting, but it was not the reason he did the things he did.
|
On May 27 2014 04:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this. And yet he killed more men than women.
|
He's not a serial killer though... He's a spree killer. Very different.
|
United States42886 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:34 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:31 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this. I think he was just mentally insane, a narcist with a godcomplex with strong psychopathic features. He wasnt just a misogynist he hated all happy people in general because of his inability to get what he wants. Yeah, obviously he was insane and a colossal narcissist but that doesn't mean we can't analyse what he said at all. He couldn't reconcile his own self definition as the perfect man with his inability to live up to his messed up definition of the male identity and flipped the fuck out. His self definition was crazy and him flipping the fuck out was crazy but we can still analyse the male identity part of it. Somewhere along the line he got the idea that if you're not having sex with a ton of women then you're not a real man, that's worth talking about.
|
On May 27 2014 04:34 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:31 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this. I think he was just mentally insane, a narcist with a godcomplex with strong psychopathic features. He wasnt just a misogynist he hated all happy people in general because of his inability to get what he wants. 1. Someone spends years spreading hate towards women on message boards. 2. Write a misogynistic manifesto about about his beliefs towards women. 3. Creates YouTube videos explaining those beliefs and how he wants to kill women. 4. Proceeds to commit mass murder because of his hate towards women. Hmmm...I am not convinced there was any misogyny involved.
But maybe we can compromise. People can just say that Valerie Solanas was just insane and then we can say that Marc Lepine and Elliot Rodger were just insane. However, there is something rather infantile about that imo.
|
On May 27 2014 04:40 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 04:34 Sokrates wrote:On May 27 2014 04:31 KwarK wrote:On May 27 2014 04:20 urboss wrote: What's all that bullshit discussion about feminism about? I thought there was a serial killing? I'm not sure if this is a troll question or you're genuinely ignorant but the serial killer was a misogynist whose self described problems stemmed from his inability to reconcile his own existence with his concept of masculinity and blamed women for this. I think he was just mentally insane, a narcist with a godcomplex with strong psychopathic features. He wasnt just a misogynist he hated all happy people in general because of his inability to get what he wants. 1. Someone spends years spreading hate towards women on message boards. 2. Write a misogynistic manifesto about about his beliefs towards women. 3. Creates YouTube videos explaining those beliefs and how he wants to kill women. 4. Proceeds to commit mass murder because of his hate towards women. Hmmm...I am not convinced there was any misogyny involved. But maybe we can compromise. People can just say that Valerie Solanas was just insane and then we can say that Marc Lepine and Elliot Rodger were just insane. However, there is something rather infantile about that imo.
You have to understand that the narcists with a godcomplex will make up a artificial framework on why not them but the others are the reason why they are in misery. So mb in a feminist world he wouldnt have blamed it on women (which i doubt) but then he would have killed men. He already hated them anyway with a passion. People like him will always HATE somebody and make up a framework on why it is ok to hate them. So in your parallel universe he would have hated tall, handsome men because they are the percived reason why he couldnt get what he wanted.But usually the main source for hate of such killers are the persons that rejected them in that case women.
|
I don`t even think a girlfriend would have been able to solve this. Through the whole thing you just get this pervasive feeling of a completely shallow person whose entire self esteem stems from what he thinks other people think of him. He makes sure to point out the price of the wine label he was drinking at a friends party, he loves to talk about all the times he traveled first class and how he went to premieres, or specifically mention the fancy clothes he wore. Clearly he had no sense of intrinsic self esteem. Despite all the stuff he did have, this lack of any intrinsic feeling of value meant he was still immensely jealous of anyone he perceived (rightly or wrongly) as having something he did not, or being higher up then him such as the son of the french hotel baron (Max I think it was). In the end I don`t think anything (a girlfriend, millions of dollars, whatever) would have made him happy, I mean I get the feeling through the end of the manifesto that he simply wanted/needed everything, complete and utter control.For goodness sake, he wanted to be the `divine dictator`of the world so he could mandate how everyone has to live, and so that he could starve women to death in concentration camps.
|
United States42886 Posts
Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs.
|
On May 27 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote: Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs.
So how is feminism helping that then? I mean he was even thinking he is entitled to win the lottery...
|
United States42886 Posts
On May 27 2014 05:07 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote: Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs. So how is feminism helping that then? I mean he was even thinking he is entitled to win the lottery... You want feminism to help him?
|
On May 27 2014 05:07 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote: Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs. So how is feminism helping that then? I mean he was even thinking he is entitled to win the lottery... How could feminism help him? I mean, he was batshit crazy. I don't think women's rights is going to help that out with that.
|
I agree that its worth discussing. The problem is that he holds so many other bizarre beliefs that it is difficult to atttibute any special importance to his views on manhood. He seems to be extremely upset about rejection in general, even mentioning things like being rejected for his height in a theme park at 6 years old as an injustice. Seeing other men with grilfriends were apparently horrific experiences to him. Even though he was very interested in having sex/girlfriend he did not actively pursue them, he just waited around in places where there were women he was interested in and was then angry that they didnt come talk to him. He wanted his mother to find a rich man so he could be part of an upper class family and that would fix all his problems. His views are extremely racist aswell, he seems to consider white people superior even though he is half asian. He frequently describes revenge fantasies that are obviously inspired by game of thrones. This is just from a couple pages of his manifesto that I read, I'm sure there is much more crazy in there.
|
With the advent of social media and networking, the internet has allowed for an exact, numeric representation of your popularity.
How many friends do you have on facebook? How many people follow you on twitter, instagram, etc?
While to some (and I'd hesitate to argue most) 'older' internet users may not see much merit in this, I wonder what profound effect might be made on a young person to see, quite plainly infront of you, just how unpopular you are. And, not just that, but just how relatively more popular other people are in comparison.
When I was in high school, popularity was pretty abstract. You had a general idea of who was more well liked, but it was always just word of mouth on who was a "cool kid." I can imagine it would have been much more disheartening to me when I was 15 to see that I- for arguments sake- only had 50 facebook friends. (I was a straight-a student, came from a good and well off family, I took care of myself, etc). Unfortunately, I was only about 5"5 then, and it's hard to get girls to like you when you're shorter than them (or so I convinced myself to justify the rejection I faced). This is completely anecdotal to my own experience, but I challenge you to think about how your youth and mental mindset would've been shaped if you, and everyone on facebook (which basically all kids are), knew that you weren't "cool." I'm reminded of that south park episode, which dramatizes the concept, but if any of you watched that episode, who wasn't convinced that kid ends up killing people?
I fear that social media and networking through the internet is only going to lead to more young people generating serious insecurities and complexes.
I don't know where I'm going with this doomsday train of thought, but it scares me to think of how crazy I, or a lot of kids I knew growing up, could've been if they'd known just how unpopular and unliked they were.
edit- to clarify where this came from, I think seeing the scale of relative popularity through the facebook/etc. lets you know at an early age what people find more "appealing," - which is arguably looks, muscles, money, etc - something you're simultaneously being taught not to base your life and self-worth around. I can imagine that being very confusing for young kids with other issues (like broken homes etc). I wonder if something like this helped lead to his misconceived notion of popularity/desirability. Discuss.
|
I can't believe the people who are saying that this is a result of poor laws regarding gun regulation. DID YOU WATCH HIS VIDEOS? The guy is completely bat shit fucked up in the head, that's the real problem here. I guarantee you that he would have found a way to do this regardless of how strict gun laws are. If we want to stop events like this from happening, we need to focus on getting people like this help. You can go to his youtube channel and watch videos that he has been uploading for months leading up to this attack, AND YET NOTHING WAS DONE! NOTHING!!!!! He is completely insane and it's abundantly clear after watching his videos that this guy needed serious mental help. It's so sad to me that people will just use this as more "evidence" that we need to strengthen gun laws, and they will completely ignore the real problem...
|
Well, I mean, if he couldn't walk into a gun store and buy a gun or three, I'm not too sure that an upper-middle-class white kid from the California suburbs would have known how to go about getting a gun. It's not the main point or the main problem in this particular case, but it's a valid criticism.
Furthermore, he'd been getting help. He's been in therapy. I believe his manifesto touches on that - I got to about page 30 before I started feeling too ill to continue. ALSO also, his mom found his youtube videos and called the cops on him. I think she found the writings too? The cops came and interviewed him and somehow left with the impression that he was the loveliest kid on the planet.
|
On May 27 2014 05:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 05:07 Sokrates wrote:On May 27 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote: Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs. So how is feminism helping that then? I mean he was even thinking he is entitled to win the lottery... You want feminism to help him?
On May 27 2014 05:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 05:07 Sokrates wrote:On May 27 2014 05:01 KwarK wrote: Nobody is suggesting he wasn't completely crazyballs. So how is feminism helping that then? I mean he was even thinking he is entitled to win the lottery... How could feminism help him? I mean, he was batshit crazy. I don't think women's rights is going to help that out with that.
So then i do not understand the whole discussion about this...
|
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.... FromShouri, allow me explain why that is an ad hominem argument, and why Figgy has some ground to stand on:
Of course regulation is the problem around this. Don't be fooled, it may be difficult to purchase a firearm in California because of recent changes to gun policy, the fact remains that regulations are far from complete, or even safe for that matter.
Did you know that a mentally ill person can not own a gun in California, yet a consumer is not required (excluding some counties) to be mentally assessed before a weapons purchase.
To be frank, regulations in California are set up in a fashion where anyone can buy a legal weapon in 10-20 days, as long as they haven't been a criminal before. Is this logical to you? If so, you should join the republic party and express your opinions, but if you wish to live in reality, you should question what is set in place and actually give a shit about your children; no, this doesn't take away your stupid rights to bear arms.
Sometimes I compare Americans and their guns to some dog owners and their dogs. Some pet owners will not get their dog neutered solely on the fact that they believe it is removing their dog's manhood, and it will become less of a dog because of such procedure. I feel that some Americans are exactly like that with their guns. If you remove guns then it makes me less of a person, or I'm giving into government and I'm now not as strong, some asinine argument like that. When in fact you are creating an even larger problem; stray dogs and overpopulation, and with guns, well, it becomes more serious than stray dogs and overpopulation, or just a general nuisance.
On May 26 2014 09:07 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2014 07:00 EarthwormJim wrote: When will America change gun policy?
My heart goes out to your community. Normally these kinds of threads make it past the first page before it turns to this discussion. You took it there with the first post. Impressive. If that's true, than I've failed to keep it on track. lol.
To address this issue of misogyny, I don't believe it to be true. I think Kwark, you've been defending this point because of what he said in his video, but also because of your own personal belief, a self-acclaimed feminist.
I don't believe Elliot Rodgers to be a misogynist, but rather narcissistic. I suppose you could argue he took part in misogyny but to define him as a misogynist may not be entirely accurate and taking away from his real mental state. How can one say I am a misogynist when a girl breaks up with me and I call her a bitch or if she cheats on me and I consider her a whore, but the feelings die off when my anger does. Does that make me a misogynist? I would think not - but I certainly took part in misogyny during that time - as with a lot, a lot, of men, especially young men, who don't understand how to deal with these overwhelming feelings; was it because of my manhood, was it because I'm not manly enough, am I worthy for a new mate now, do I take these complexities into my new relationship, etc. It's a natural response to lash out at what caused you harm - but it certainly doesn't make it correct or civil for that matter. People struggle to be civil in certain situations everyday, but I would not label them as sociopaths, but perhaps evolving and breaking away from their own programming; children with good parenting have a much better time accomplishing this. Society tends to forget that not even two hundred years ago, if a woman was to disagree the result would be violence, but now society demands instant change, and as a result we have a lot of domestic violence, but I digress.
I believe Elliot was simply angry and narcissistic which eventually manifested into placing blame on everything but what was actually wrong, himself. That behavior is typical for narcissists and coincidences with anger as well. We may never know, but the best evidence is in the action, not what is said. He shot everybody (male and female), with no absolute goal or primary target in mind, other than to do harm on everything but himself. This is what leads me to believe he is narcissistic and paranoid, rather than a woman hater.
|
On May 27 2014 05:48 EarthwormJim 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.... FromShouri, allow me explain why that is an ad hominem argument
How is that an ad hominem? You said you would explain it but... you never did.
|
|
|
|