|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything.
He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you.
|
On May 28 2014 01:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:26 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On May 28 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote:On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 18:53 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates? Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun. I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes? People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter. I really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes. That's just blatantly false. First off all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference? That's only because you don't want to commit a crime and are arguing hyperbole. If you wanted to commit a crime you would go to any shady part of town and ask around and eventually find someone who would sell you a gun. Being in America you still have to get a background check and go through a waiting period before getting a gun, getting one illegally is still faster. Also it appears that only half of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who could even legally own a gun, and that didn't mention anything about how many of those actually used legally obtained and registered guns or not. It seems about a quarter of the mass shootings happen strictly in (as in only in) gun free zones, where it is illegal to carry a gun anyway. Well firstly most towns here don't have shady parts with people selling guns, no hyperbole. The US is different in that regard. And it's not only about who is legally entitled to own a gun, it's about gun culture.The overwhelming majority here does not know how to use a gun, let alone has ever used one. That's also certainly different in the US. The threshold in the US is way lower than everywhere else to get/use guns. Also as you ignored the second part of my post. If it's not the guns, what is the difference that makes these things happen more often in the US? US simply has more people. So statistically, we're going to have more psychos. Add in the fact that we have basically no mental healthcare, and you end up with way more mass killings than most other places. Guns have nothing to do with it. Timothy McVeigh killed 82 with some fertilizer.
The US has had more school shootings and gun rampages happening in the last 15 years than the rest of the world combined
map of school shootings worldwide
And just because somewhere someone built a bomb out of fertilizer guns become a non-issue, seriously how do you people not see that having a bazillion guns per person could have anything to do with the degree of violence in the US?
|
This was truly the epitome of narcissism.
If we're to take any good out of this, I hope we can use it to examine ourselves and change what we don't like about ourselves. I really have to wonder if that guy made any attempt at changing the way he acts, as I'm guessing he became an automatic turnoff to any girl that may have been interested.
My thoughts go out to the people who had their lives taken from them. All I can picture is this happening at my university, and it's a scary thought.
|
As long as we are going all quasi-Freudian with claims of psychological "entitlement" here, it might be worthwhile to examine the idea that Rodger's inability to transfer his ego-libido into a complementary object-libido resulted in the channeling of his destrudo into seeking external objects as an act of self-gratification.
|
On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you.
Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics.
|
On May 28 2014 01:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:18 Millitron wrote:On May 28 2014 00:26 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2014 00:19 hunts wrote:On May 28 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote:On May 27 2014 23:57 hunts wrote:On May 27 2014 23:45 levelping wrote:On May 27 2014 19:56 MarlieChurphy wrote:On May 27 2014 19:33 Crushinator wrote:On May 27 2014 19:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:
[quote]
Anyway, this has nothing to do with gun control. As most of these stories don't. Guy is crazy and went on a rampage. He killed people with a knife. He could have used a car to run people down, he could have made a bomb, he could do a number of things that might even be worse than a gun.
I support gun ownership for self defence purposes, but I find this reasoning to be unconvincing. The whole reason people want to be able to own guns is that it makes violence for self defence purposes easier, why would that not hold for offensive purposes? People will get guns if they really want them. legality doesn't even matter. I really have a hard time seeing how this argument can be convincing, or even true. In my country, possession of a firearm send you to jail for a very long time. The only way to get a gun is to probably find a black market source that sells it, and pay a huge premium (this is all hugely hypothetical, since we haven't had a reported cases of anyone owning a firearm in decades - so the black market probably doesn't even exist). If this Eliot guy were in Singapore and feeling depress and wanted to go on a shooting spree, he;d have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun (much less three). The difficulty would be a huge barrier to him committing his crime. I mean by the logic of your argument, why have gun regulation at all? Since people who want to get automatic weapons will get them if they want to. Illegality doesn't even matter. You know what else sends someone to jail for a long time? Mass murder, homicide, armed robbery, robbing a bank, etc... Tell me next time that stops someone from doing it. If someone wants to commit a crime, they will be able to get their gun, and the fact that owning a gun will be a crime will not in any way stop them. The only thing it will stop is normal citizens from being able to protect themselves against such crimes. That's just blatantly false. First off all if I wanted to commit a crime right now I would have no fucking idea how to get a gun, period. There's just no easy way to get one here. Secondly all countries all over the planet have crazy young adults, why is it only in the US that these events occur with such frequency? If it's not the amount of weapons what is the difference? That's only because you don't want to commit a crime and are arguing hyperbole. If you wanted to commit a crime you would go to any shady part of town and ask around and eventually find someone who would sell you a gun. Being in America you still have to get a background check and go through a waiting period before getting a gun, getting one illegally is still faster. Also it appears that only half of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who could even legally own a gun, and that didn't mention anything about how many of those actually used legally obtained and registered guns or not. It seems about a quarter of the mass shootings happen strictly in (as in only in) gun free zones, where it is illegal to carry a gun anyway. Well firstly most towns here don't have shady parts with people selling guns, no hyperbole. The US is different in that regard. And it's not only about who is legally entitled to own a gun, it's about gun culture.The overwhelming majority here does not know how to use a gun, let alone has ever used one. That's also certainly different in the US. The threshold in the US is way lower than everywhere else to get/use guns. Also as you ignored the second part of my post. If it's not the guns, what is the difference that makes these things happen more often in the US? US simply has more people. So statistically, we're going to have more psychos. Add in the fact that we have basically no mental healthcare, and you end up with way more mass killings than most other places. Guns have nothing to do with it. Timothy McVeigh killed 82 with some fertilizer. The US has had more school shootings and gun rampages happening in the last 15 years than the rest of the world combinedmap of school shootings worldwide
So? This doesn't disprove what I said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster#Day_of_the_disaster
The single biggest school massacre was committed with dynamite, not a gun.
The violence in the US is due to the war on drugs. Remember Prohibition? And how that basically created organized crime? And how it mostly went away after the repeal of Prohibition? Well the same thing is happening now. The vast majority of gun violence is not just random violence. Its gangs shooting each other over drugs.
|
On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics.
alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive.
|
On May 28 2014 01:41 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female?
So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy.
It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people.
And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong.
I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense.
So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics. alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive.
He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem?
|
On May 26 2014 09:22 Yorbon wrote:
Regardless of cultural circumstances or mental issues, if you think a solution to your problem is to kill random people, you're a loony. Or at least 'unfit' to live in society.
I think Elliot Rodger was well aware that he was unfit to live in society, or at least the inverse- that society was unfit for him to live in. Invocation of the latter is primary, defensive narcissism and is a normal, human emotion in under conditions of social rejection and alienation.
Thus we say that he was unfit to live in society. And what shall you say, when his response to society is:
Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay
To mould me man? Did I solicit thee
From darkness to promote me?
|
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:41 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics. alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive. He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps.
exactly! and he hated them because he felt entitled to girls.
|
On May 28 2014 01:49 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:On May 28 2014 01:41 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men.
In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics. alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive. He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps. exactly! and he hated them because he felt entitled to girls.
If you don't learn how to have a player's attitude toward women and do what the players with game to do to get women, then yeah ofc you ain't getting love from women no matter how rich you are.
|
On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it.
I mentioned it was hyperbolic, but you are not entirely off base. I think it is pretty clear that he felt attacked, berated, misunderstood, what have you by most anyone he perceived to be more successful in the sexual/social realms.
The ultimate victims of his attack whether male or female is not really the point, as he states he intended to prioritize a sorority and then turn to random victims, which does indicate a hierarchy of him first resenting women, then resenting men he considered to be less than him were successful with the women who spurned him.
There is enough documentation from the shooter it is reasonably apparent he just didn't get where he wanted to get with regards to the attack. Once you start something like that on a school campus, the clock is ticking. Ideology be damned, he wanted to "right," these perceived injustices or, more accurately, take revenge for them.
Misanthropy was a part of it, but it is very clear that women were at the top of his list.
|
This is why prostitution should be legalized
|
On May 28 2014 01:41 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:
[quote]
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female?
So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy.
It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people.
And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong.
I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense.
So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics. alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive.
And I'm saying if he is crazy in the first place any ideology would have sufficed for him. People adopt all kinds of ideologies to justify commiting atrocious acts to themselves. Religion, racism, misoginy, misanthropy, nationalism, etc..
But that doesn't mean that whatever ideology they adopt is the ultimate cause of their actions, it's most likely not even a proximate cause. (Correlation doesn't imply causation, it can be evidence for causation but it doesn't imply it. add: In logic "imply" refers to necessity as in statements being necessarily true)
Your problem is that you put so much emphasis on the words of an evidently crazy person. And crazy people (as evidenced by the inconsistency of elliot rodger's beliefs and his actions) aren't limited by having to think rationally in the same way we do, in their minds they can justify anything, an ideology is just convenient in that sense, but if your actions aren't consistent with whatever ideology you claim to have the conclusion that follows is NOT that your ideology is the ultimate cause of your actions.
Because like I already said, if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify absolutely anything.
And another problem I have with your argument is that it seemingly assumes ideologies to be the starting point, when in reality you aren't presented with a list of ideologies to choose from at birth and then arbitrarily choose one or some of them.
There are events that almost always preceed people adopting any particular ideology. Elliot Rodgers wasn't born a misogynist or misanthropist, there are events that lead to him becoming this twisted person that killed so many people and it's those events that are the ultimate causes of this crime, not his ideologies.
|
To feel entitled to being loved is not the same thing as to feel entitled to possession, and the catch-all use of the word "entitlement" sooner deceives than clarifies. Elliot's feeling of hatred for women arose not from his insensitivity to women, but from his hypersensitivity towards them. This is the opposite of what feminists mean by "objectification." He felt himself "objectified" by society...invisible and ignored.
|
On May 28 2014 01:55 Thor.Rush wrote:
This is why prostitution should be legalized
I think there is even more truth to this then simply "getting him laid". Opponents to prostitution say it desensitizes us to sex -- but why should that be a bad thing altogether?
It seems we've long had problems with being too sensitive over sex. Sex will always be a high-pedestal in most people's minds, as it should if only out of base instinct, but it becomes something sacred to our society, and that is a dangerous thing. I've said before, this guy didn't just want sex, he wanted romance.
We all possess a degree of narcissism, and that narcissistic hero inside all of us is usually taught that somewhere along the way a prince/princess comes into our lives and provides our life with ultimate meaning and motive. Our society also long taught children that sex is only to be had with this one person.
I doubt prostitution would have "cured" this kid in a sex act, but its effect on society and its sexual hang-ups I'm really starting to feel would have great long-term benefits.
|
On May 28 2014 01:55 Thor.Rush wrote:
This is why prostitution should be legalized
I'm not sure if even that would have stopped him from having those thoughts. I think the idea that you can't have someone because they aren't interested in you drove him crazy, and add in that all the "asshole" guys were the ones getting the girls, that just made him worse.
Of course, sexual activity may have at least stemmed his thoughts. Shame he didn't live in the end in regards to that. Interviewing him may have been somewhat insightful for law enforcement.
|
On May 28 2014 02:06 MoltkeWarding wrote:
To feel entitled to being loved is not the same thing as to feel entitled to possession, and the catch-all use of the word "entitlement" sooner deceives than clarifies. Elliot's feeling of hatred for women arose not from his insensitivity to women, but from his hypersensitivity towards them. This is the opposite of what feminists mean by "objectification." He felt himself objectified by society...invisible and ignored.
That's a very good point. He didn't attempt to rape women and he didn't attempt to have sex with a prostitute.
|
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:41 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:35 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:27 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:19 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:16 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with woman and women in general. I don't think anything he did was a consistent course of action for years. Hating everyone and hating women is not mutually exclusive. He spelled out at great length that he felt entitled to women and since he didn't get them it drove him to this. If his own actions aren't consistent with his own ideology then it is a pointless mental exercise to discuss his ideology or make it responsible for his own actions. Because if we allowed for that kind of reasoning we could justify anything with anything. He documented his ideology very well. if you think who ended up dead is a better indicator of what he believed than what he recorded himself saying for years that's fine for you. Yeah I genuinely believe that. People can claim to have all kinds of ideologies and beliefs all they want, but if their actions aren't consistent with the beliefs and ideologies they claim to be holding then it is simply meaningless semantics. alright, well i don't think where he pointed the gun invalidates everything he wrote in his manifesto ... in which he outlines why hes doing this.... aka his motive. He hates those men with the skills available to get girls and he hated how those attractive girls fall into those men's laps. He doesn't want to become those men with "game". That's why he murdered people from both camps. A lot of people in similar topic threads, on internet articles, and over there at social media blamed "misogyny" for this incident. So the question is: how could we as a society solve that problem?
Neuter everyone and go to a test-tube based baby making system
|
On May 28 2014 01:12 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 01:10 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 01:06 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 01:02 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 00:58 SlixSC wrote:On May 27 2014 23:15 ThomasjServo wrote:
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
It's not that simple though. I mean let's look at the facts for a second here. The majority of the people that got killed were in fact male. So if misogyny really had been the ultimate driving force behind his actions why is it that he seemingly didn't care if his victims were male or female? So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny but the result of misanthropy. It's not that he "just" hated women, he hated everyone, it's just more convenient to blame one specific group of people than to admit to yourself that you are the problem and hate all people. And of course this absurdity immediately evaporates once you consider the following scenario. A person says "I'm racist and hate x group of people" then goes out and almost exclusively kills people of an entirely different group of people to which they themself belong. I think nobody would then assume that this crime was racially motivated, it just wouldn't make any sense. So once you start looking at this particular incident with that perspective it should be fairly obvious to see why misogyny cannot be the ultimate cause of it. His hatred for women led him to hate those they chose as well. He felt more entitled to women. Like in your example a white guy killing a white bus driver that lets black people sit in the front. Not absurd or evaporated. It's not the same thing though, because he seemingly hated all people, it's not like he was standing there and asking his male victims "do you have a wife, girlfriend, what are your views on women? Do I have reason to kill you given my hatred of women?" No he just killed everyone and more importantly primarily men. In your scenario the person killing the bus driver has additional information which made the murder consistent with the ideology they supposedly have, in this case the killer simply didn't have that additional information, period. i'm not sure if you watched the videos but he spelled out his motives. he said women choosing men other than him was an injustice that he would not let stand. a concept that spawned from his misogynistic views of entitlement. Right and what I'm saying is that if that were his actual motive, it is not a consistent course of action to randomly kill other men. The two groups of people he should have been focusing on (according to himself) would have had to be exclusively men that are currently in a relationship with a woman and women in general.
Killing his roommates was part of his plan all along because he thought they might stand in the way of his "retribution" so that accounts of 3 o 6 killings. He goes immediately to a sorority to kill women and he kills 2. Then he just randomly shoots up a deli which causes the last death. He definitely was angry at and hated everyone and society, but seemed to have an emphasis on women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
