|
Any PUA discussion is banned from page 42 and onwards. |
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 all very sad, right up to the moment he decided to kill a bunch of people. There are droves and droves of people with the same problems he had but they are able/willing to apply some perspective to themselves and the world around them.
True psychopaths have no perspective outside of their own warped version of reality and are incapable of objectivity, they literally project the state of their psyche unto everything and everyone and unless they themselves want to change, there is no way of getting through to them.
I'd love for all these armchair psychologists to actually spend a week, a day or even an hour with a psychotic person, because I can tell you, there is nothing quite like it, and you might just have second thoughts on the whole "blame society" perspective.
|
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.
feeling entitled to someone else's emotions disregards their opinion on the matter as much as feeling entitled to anything else of theirs. pretty sure objectification is often used to describe being reduced to the value of ones looks (i.e. degrading their status to a mere object) which he does constantly referring to beautiful blonds that should be with him instead of black people. I don't know a definition of objectification that means being ignored and which the opposite is hypersensitivity to women
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this". obviously the root of the problem is mental illness and iuno what you were talking about with the choose ideology at birth bit.
|
On May 28 2014 02:56 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +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 all very sad, right up to the moment he decided to kill a bunch of people. There are droves and droves of people with the same problems he had but they are able/willing to apply some perspective to themselves and the world around them. True psychopaths have no perspective outside of their own warped version of reality and are incapable of objectivity, they literally project the state of their psyche unto everything and everyone and unless they themselves want to change, there is no way of getting through to them. I'd love for all these armchair psychologists to actually spend a week, a day or even an hour with a psychotic person, because I can tell you, there is nothing quite like it, and you might just have second thoughts on the whole "blame society" perspective.
Pretty much my point. the fact that hes crazy pretty much makes it irrelevant what ideology he subscribed to or what his internal thought process was.
I really don't think there is much society could have done, because as you say there are millions if not billions of people in the same or potentially even worse situations than he found himself in and they don't go around killing a bunch of people. As a matter of fact the vast majority of people would never ever do such a thing.
So this is very much just about the individual, not a group to which they belong or an ideology they claim to have.
On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +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. @SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this"..
Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have
|
On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+
Canada has more guns that people.
Know how many shooting rampages we have?
Oh right, ZERO.
Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.
|
On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.
Mark Lepine would wants to have a word with you....
|
On May 28 2014 03:03 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Mark Lepine would wants to have a word with you....
When the best example you can come up with was 25 years ago you aren't exactly proving your point.
|
On May 28 2014 03:04 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:03 Xiphos wrote:On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Mark Lepine would wants to have a word with you.... When the best example you can come up with was 25 years ago you aren't exactly proving your point.
You said "ZERO". So if there is one, then it's not "ZERO".
And plus you have to take account that Canadian population is so much less than USA's.
|
On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.
Also the fact that there are like 3 people per square mile in Canada might contribute to this a little. Every time population density plays a role Canada is hardly a very good candidate for comparison.
|
On May 28 2014 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Also the fact that there are like 3 people per square mile in Canada might contribute to this a little. Every time population density plays a role Canada is hardly a very good candidate for comparison.
The person who I responded to directly commented that the USA has more guns that people. So does Canada, over 30 MILLION guns. I live in the largest city in Canada where it's a lot more compact most likely than wherever you live. Every single member in my family owns guns. 50% of my friends own guns. Not a single one of those guns were designed to kill other human beings.
Yet we don't go around shooting each other.
Hint: The reason isn't because we have less people.
People in the USA are just utterly brainwashed into thinking they don't have it anywhere near as bad as they actually do. I've personally witnessed more gun crime (twice, directly outside my hotels) in the USA on vacations than I have EVER experienced (zero) living for almost 3 decades in Canada.
|
On May 28 2014 03:08 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Also the fact that there are like 3 people per square mile in Canada might contribute to this a little. Every time population density plays a role Canada is hardly a very good candidate for comparison. The person who I responded to directly commented that the USA has more guns that people. So does Canada, over 30 MILLION guns.
You sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country At least Wikipedia says gun ownership in the US still more than triples Canadian gun ownership, which would put it on the same level as Germany or France.
Also I think you just made the 30 million number up. (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf)
|
On May 28 2014 02:56 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +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 all very sad, right up to the moment he decided to kill a bunch of people. There are droves and droves of people with the same problems he had but they are able/willing to apply some perspective to themselves and the world around them. True psychopaths have no perspective outside of their own warped version of reality and are incapable of objectivity, they literally project the state of their psyche unto everything and everyone and unless they themselves want to change, there is no way of getting through to them. I'd love for all these armchair psychologists to actually spend a week, a day or even an hour with a psychotic person, because I can tell you, there is nothing quite like it, and you might just have second thoughts on the whole "blame society" perspective.
I'd love for all these armchair psychologists to actually know the difference between a psychopath and a psychotic person.
|
On May 28 2014 03:08 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:06 Nyxisto wrote:On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Also the fact that there are like 3 people per square mile in Canada might contribute to this a little. Every time population density plays a role Canada is hardly a very good candidate for comparison. The person who I responded to directly commented that the USA has more guns that people. So does Canada, over 30 MILLION guns. I live in the largest city in Canada where it's a lot more compact most likely than wherever you live. Every single member in my family owns guns. 50% of my friends own guns. Not a single one of those guns were designed to kill other human beings. Yet we don't go around shooting each other. Hint: The reason isn't because we have less people. People in the USA are just utterly brainwashed into thinking they don't have it anywhere near as bad as they actually do. I've personally witnessed more gun crime (twice, directly outside my hotels) in the USA on vacations than I have EVER experienced (zero) living for almost 3 decades in Canada.
Yes you and your personal experience should be the same as our 300+ millions of people. I lived in and around NYC my entire life and never witnessed any gun crime. I don't go around thinking everyone has the same experience though. Innocent people getting shot in the street is an extremely rare thing to happen. Out of all 32,000 gun deaths a year only 2,200 are not suicide, accident, or gang violence.
|
On May 28 2014 03:06 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:04 Figgy wrote:On May 28 2014 03:03 Xiphos wrote:On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Mark Lepine would wants to have a word with you.... When the best example you can come up with was 25 years ago you aren't exactly proving your point. You said "ZERO". So if there is one, then it's not "ZERO". And plus you have to take account that Canadian population is so much less than USA's.
Not to mention the US is much less homogeneous than Canada is as well. A more uniform society is much easier to govern.
|
On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have
Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations.
|
On May 28 2014 01:55 Thor.Rush wrote:
This is why prostitution should be legalized
Pretty sure this super rich kid could have got a whore if he'd wanted to. He didn't go on a rampage because he wasn't getting enough sex.
|
Man, what a tragedy. I'm just sad that a lot of the people in the feminist movement are waving this incident and politicizing it so righteously, with the commonplace phrase "this is what women live in fear of every day" ringing from various op eds all over the place.
Let me mourn first before I start thinking about how to prevent another attack, and even then, I'm really much annoyed at how quick we were to demonize the guy and use him as a generalization for a seemingly large group of males that live in America. I guarantee if this guy did nothing but instead kept only to his manifesto + youtube videos, people would just write him off as a creeper.
Like....like Shauni. Nobody says he's part of some big problem in society. We just think he's fucking creepy as shit.
|
On May 28 2014 03:01 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:56 heliusx wrote:
Except he's not from Singapore. He's from a country with more guns than people. 300,000,000+ Canada has more guns that people. Know how many shooting rampages we have? Oh right, ZERO. Because we actually have regulation and don't sell guns SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE.
Umm...
All Im saying bro is whats a gun "SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE"? You can kill someone with a bear gun just as easily as you can with a "people" killing gun. Hell you could kill someone with damn near anything considering the body is a highly fragile "machine" and if 1 thing goes wrong you can die. Besides you're implying there is no regulation, there is, not saying the system couldn't use some tweaking, but it's not like anyone anywhere can walk into a store and walk out with a gun. There's waiting periods, checks that are suppose to happen. But my other point still stands, whats to stop someone from not using a gun "SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE" to kill someone? Does that mean we take away "hunting" guns because they could be used to kill someone?
|
On May 28 2014 03:31 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations.
And that's totally irrelevant. Because let's try and be a little realistic here for a second. We will never get rid of racism, sexism, etc.. entirely and even if we could I very much doubt that people wouldn't then just find other reasons to justify killing other people.
As for your second statement, you demonstrate a weird understanding of causality. Yes Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist, but these things cannot be the ultimate causes of their actions, because people do not subscribe to ideologies in a vacuum, there are prior events, experiences, etc.. that inform that choice. Nobody is born as a racist or a sexist, there are events that can result in people becoming racist, sexist, nationalist, etc... and it's those events that are the actual causes of their actions, not them deciding to subscribe to a particular ideology at some point in their lives. And even that is assuming they would be rational enough to at least have their actions be consistent with their self-proclaimed ideology, which Elliot evidently was not.
And of course all of this is ignoring the possibility that we don't have a good enough understanding of biology and psychology to rule out the possibility that some people might just be genetically pre-disposed to be more aggressive, more envious, more hateful than others... we cannot systematically rule that out either.
|
On May 28 2014 03:45 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 03:31 ComaDose wrote:On May 28 2014 03:00 SlixSC wrote:On May 28 2014 02:57 ComaDose wrote:
@SlixSC you put so much emphasis on the actions of an evidently crazy person, and i believe him when he says "this is why i did this".. Because if he is evidently crazy what does it matter what his self-justification was... Breivik thought he had a good reason to hurt and kill hundres of people in norway a few years ago... so what? The guy was crazy, so him being able to justify his actions to himself is entirely irrelevant, because no normal person would ever think "I never had sex with a woman therefore I need to kill women". That is not a logical thought process a normal person would ever have Iuno, maybe if no one was racist Breivik wouldn't have been racist. Like you said its about the individuals; Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist. These were their self proclaimed primary motivations. And that's totally irrelevant. Because let's try and be a little realistic here for a second. We will never get rid of racism, sexism, etc.. entirely and even if we could I very much doubt that people wouldn't then just find other reasons to justify killing other people. As for your second statement, you demonstrate a weird understanding of causality. Yes Breivik was racist and Elliot was sexist, but these things cannot be the ultimate causes of their actions, because people do not subscribe to ideologies in a vacuum, there are prior events, experiences, etc.. that inform that choice. Nobody is born as a racist or a sexist, there are events that can result in people becoming racist, sexist, nationalist, etc... and it's those events that are the actual causes of their actions, not them deciding to subscribe to a particular ideology at some point in their lives. And even that is assuming that they are rational enough to have their actions be consistent with their self-proclaimed ideology, which Elliot evidently was not. And of course all of this is ignoring the possibility that it we don't have a good enough understanding of biology and psychology to rule out the possibility that some people might just be genetically pre-disposed to be more aggressive, more envious, more hateful than others... we cannot systematically rule that out either.
well i didn't ignore that possibility... or say anything about causation... so i'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm positive there were societal influences that shaped his ideology and made him feel entitled to women. (i still don't know where you're going with this arbitrary vacuum ideology thing)
|
On May 28 2014 02:56 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +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 all very sad, right up to the moment he decided to kill a bunch of people. There are droves and droves of people with the same problems he had but they are able/willing to apply some perspective to themselves and the world around them. True psychopaths have no perspective outside of their own warped version of reality and are incapable of objectivity, they literally project the state of their psyche unto everything and everyone and unless they themselves want to change, there is no way of getting through to them. I'd love for all these armchair psychologists to actually spend a week, a day or even an hour with a psychotic person, because I can tell you, there is nothing quite like it, and you might just have second thoughts on the whole "blame society" perspective.
One of the more difficult things to do in life is to understand the evil that is done to us; to perceive our own injuries as a phenomenon of the intellect rather than of the sensation. If that amounts to a failure of perspective, it is the same general failure which is inflicted among millions of people daily. What is interesting and somewhat special about Rodger's perspective is his set of inverted values in responding to this sense of injured merit. To most who suffer the ordeals of envy and loneliness, the reaction of strength is one of tight-lipped stoicism; to bear the unbearable with a sigh of quiet desperation. Rodger on the other hand regarded turning the other cheek as a sign of weakness, a despicable act of cowardice which denied the reckoning of justice. His concern with justice underscores how he indeed looked upon the world with a kind of higher rationality, but one deduced from the experience of his own sensations, rather than one formed by empathy. His manifesto reveals a fairly high self-awareness, and a low awareness of other people.
I don't think you can say that this is "true psychopathy." I do not believe that psychopathy is a discrete state, but exists on a wide spectrum of influences and intensities.
Still, the statement you raise merely begs the question:
unless they themselves want to change, there is no way of getting through to them.
Rodger undoubtedly foresaw that these kinds of comments would be made after his death. That is why he detailed in his manifesto a pre-emptive apologia. He wanted to show the world that he was really concerned with justice, and that had any other means been available to assuage his sufferings, he would have pursued them.
Rodger would have liked to change, if that change could have been consistent with his constellation of inner values. There were several avenues he did pursue: he attempted to get social coaching. He had psychological sessions (he called them "hired friends.") He attempted to work on his appearance and charisma. He adopted new-age philosophies such as the "law of attraction" to ameliorate his outlook on the world. His extreme social paralysis overcame all those attempts to inch himself towards happiness.
Which leaves the epitaph: "there is no way of getting through." Just as you despair at getting through to him, he despaired at getting through to the world. Hence the consummation of despair through this orgy of death and vengeance.
I do not blame "society" for anything, but if we want to understand what really happened here, we need to "apply some perspective to the world" around us. It might do us credit to nourish our thoughts with some of that empathy which we understand to be lacking in this fellow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
