Last night at around 10pm, the town of Isla Vista (an unincorporated township next to the University of California, Santa Barbara) experienced a terrifying succession of driveby shootings.
Nine places were hit, and there are seven confirmed dead along with the perpetrator. He drove a black BMW and policemen on foot shot him as he drove through one of the streets.
I heard the gunshots last night and told my housemates, they thought they were fireworks. Little did we know, the police sirens we heard outside were in fact following a car that was driving over and firing at pedestrians. One of my fraternity brothers was at the local Pizza My Heart when the gunshots went through the window, and one hit somebody outside.
I don't know if posting this goes against some tenet of not publicizing these atrocities so that they aren't encouraged but I thought a thread was appropriate to let you all know the situation/allow community members who live in the area to discuss.
“I will be a god compared to you. You will all be animals. You are animals, and I will slaughter you like animals. I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species," he says.
"Yes, after I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I'll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there."
Never knew getting rejected by women can lead to you hating all of humanity and wishing for their death. Given, they haven't said it was him but there seems to be a connection. Either way, this is horrific and sad that it still happens. Condolences to the families
“I will be a god compared to you. You will all be animals. You are animals, and I will slaughter you like animals. I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species," he says.
"Yes, after I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I'll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there."
Never knew getting rejected by women can lead to you hating all of humanity and wishing for their death. Given, they haven't said it was him but there seems to be a connection. Either way, this is horrific and sad that it still happens. Condolences to the families
Well given mainstream media logic and them blaming videogames for shootings in the past, perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me.
Clearly the work of a lunatic, the amount of cognitive dissonance it must take to decide to go on a killing spree to punish the world for not recognising what a great guy you are is pretty colossal. My condolences go to the families of the victims and to the parents of the shooter for whom this must be a particularly difficult time. His other victims were just random senseless acts of violence that defy explanation but I feel that the losing your son, who they clearly doted on enough to spoil, and having everyone else think he's a monster, combined with the feelings of guilt, of wondering what you did wrong, whether there was something you could have done and being unable to be comforted in your grief by your friends due to what he did must be awful.
Without any friends to speak of there was probably no-one to whom the warning signs were obvious, although some of the people he interacted with online told him he was a creep and a psychopath. Some people are just broken and malfunction if left unfixed.
This is a horrible thing. I watched a couple of those videos, and it's truly terrifying hearing the stuff he says. It's a tragedy that shootings happen so frequently.
“I will be a god compared to you. You will all be animals. You are animals, and I will slaughter you like animals. I hate all of you. Humanity is a disgusting, wretched, depraved species," he says.
"Yes, after I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I'll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there."
Never knew getting rejected by women can lead to you hating all of humanity and wishing for their death. Given, they haven't said it was him but there seems to be a connection. Either way, this is horrific and sad that it still happens. Condolences to the families
Well given mainstream media logic and them blaming videogames for shootings in the past, perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me.
while I understand your point, I don't think this is the right place to take about videogame and violence etc...
On May 25 2014 08:04 hifriend wrote: Swedish news reporting that he lured a bunch of people into his apartment and killed them the day before...
Pretty tough life: college education, rich parents, lives in nice town. The only sensible thing would be to exact revenge for all the terrible things that happened in your life.
I had friends at UCSB when this happened. I saw this stuff on Facebook earlier, condolences to all involved. My heart goes out to y'all, I hope this never happens again.
Some people are just broken and malfunction if left unfixed.
People are born into a society, which is in general terms a system designed to work for a wide distribution of users. As in any distribution, it suits some less than others due to circumstance. From a very cold, mechanical perspective, you are correct- this guy was a far outlier out on the edges of the curve, for whom the system was terribly inefficient at helping him achieve his desires. From that perspective he needed to be reconditioned and electro-shocked a bit until either he fit in better, or at least was vegetable enough not to be a threat.
Can you imagine, though, the kind of trauma and ongoing frustration that causes someone to snap and do this kind of thing? Perhaps not, the level of suffering is perhaps literally inconceivable, and because of that you assume that it did not exist, and somehow the existential equivalent of a toothache can drive someone to this if they are 'broken'. Madmen, from my perspective anyway, are not born, they are made, and they're made by the very same society that works fine for you and me. Events like this are a logical consequence of many cultural norms we're pretty comfortable perpetrating, putting sexuality and relationships on a high pedestal, then ostracizing and vilifying him for being frustrated at not being able to reach it. Even more toxic is the expectation that he, being a failure at the biggest status game in society, accept that as the reasonable and fair outcome rather than, say, doing what we expect 'real men' to do when the world is against them and make a stand. The expectation that he actively take part in his own dehumanization.
When all of these cultural expectations get messed up in someone's head, this is the result. In so far as anyone is responsible for their actions, he is and it sickens me to think that anyone could make those choices. But it also sickens me that the social gut reaction is not of shame and regret that our society wreaked such suffering on one of its members that they reached a state where they felt this was a legitimate course of action, but attempting to pass him off as some kind of sub-human who basically just needed to be erased and re-written. Do you have any idea how terrifying that attitude is for the mentally ill or ostracized who might read that, or the thousands of other similar sentiments flooding the net at the moment?
I wish I could just rage against people who do this sort of thing, but unfortunately, I think that kind of reaction will ultimately result in more events just like this. Westerners are deeply conditioned to respond to hostility and un-empathic judgement with aggression and the desire to prove themselves right, which is what happened here. Just a (fairly extended) thought.
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.
Some people are just broken and malfunction if left unfixed.
People are born into a society, which is in general terms a system designed to work for a wide distribution of users. As in any distribution, it suits some less than others due to circumstance. From a very cold, mechanical perspective, you are correct- this guy was a far outlier out on the edges of the curve, for whom the system was terribly inefficient at helping him achieve his desires. From that perspective he needed to be reconditioned and electro-shocked a bit until either he fit in better, or at least was vegetable enough not to be a threat.
Can you imagine, though, the kind of trauma and ongoing frustration that causes someone to snap and do this kind of thing? Perhaps not, the level of suffering is perhaps literally inconceivable, and because of that you assume that it did not exist, and somehow the existential equivalent of a toothache can drive someone to this if they are 'broken'. Madmen, from my perspective anyway, are not born, they are made, and they're made by the very same society that works fine for you and me. Events like this are a logical consequence of many cultural norms we're pretty comfortable perpetrating, putting sexuality and relationships on a high pedestal, then ostracizing and vilifying him for being frustrated at not being able to reach it. Even more toxic is the expectation that he, being a failure at the biggest status game in society, accept that as the reasonable and fair outcome rather than, say, doing what we expect 'real men' to do when the world is against them and make a stand. The expectation that he actively take part in his own dehumanization.
When all of these cultural expectations get messed up in someone's head, this is the result. In so far as anyone is responsible for their actions, he is and it sickens me to think that anyone could make those choices. But it also sickens me that the social gut reaction is not of shame and regret that our society wreaked such suffering on one of its members that they reached a state where they felt this was a legitimate course of action, but attempting to pass him off as some kind of sub-human who basically just needed to be erased and re-written. Do you have any idea how terrifying that attitude is for the mentally ill or ostracized who might read that, or the thousands of other similar sentiments flooding the net at the moment?
I wish I could just rage against people who do this sort of thing, but unfortunately, I think that kind of reaction will ultimately result in more events just like this. Westerners are deeply conditioned to respond to hostility and un-empathic judgement with aggression and the desire to prove themselves right, which is what happened here. Just a (fairly extended) thought.
This guy was a complete and utter lunatic. Read his manifesto. This was FAR from being a guy pushed at the edge. This guy was mentally ill, he even felt he was entitled to win the super megajackpott lottery.
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.
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.
*sigh*
For once I thought we could get past the penis vs. vagina contest but it seems we can't. Feminism is a polarizing term and we should stop using it because it gives PUA and TRP weapons. We should never get into an arm's race with madmen and that's exactly what SJW are doing (one could argue that extremes are bound to meet somewhere)
If you truly want to change something, step up against street harassment, make sure your female co-workers are paid as much as you when expected and finally RAISE YOUR CHILDREN NOT TO BE FUCKING TWATS ! Only time will annihilate asocial behaviors and nothing else.
I know a guy exactly like this one (except he's not as rich as the one here), who I used to go to school with and he added me on Facebook one day. My news feed every once in a while pops up with posts from him whose contents are EXTREMELY similar to the content of the youtube videos of the perpetrator in this case. I don't mean to be judgmental but I think it's pretty evident that this guy I know is a virgin since he never really socialized with people during school events and from my knowledge he never had a girlfriend. He always makes very passive aggressive posts on people's pictures on facebooks about how they are being "lewd" and "immoral"
What the fuck am I supposed to do in this situation? What the fuck is anyone supposed to do in this situation? Is the right choice to ignore it? What if this person ends up committing a similar crime and I end up living the rest of my life knowing I could have done something to prevent it? What if he does nothing and I'm just wasting my time worrying about it?
On May 25 2014 09:19 GozoShioda wrote: Okay now I'm a bit paranoid.
I know a guy exactly like this one (except he's not as rich as the one here), who I used to go to school with and he added me on Facebook one day. My news feed every once in a while pops up with posts from him whose contents are EXTREMELY similar to the content of the youtube videos of the perpetrator in this case. I don't mean to be judgmental but I think it's pretty evident that this guy I know is a virgin since he never really socialized with people during school events and from my knowledge he never had a girlfriend. He always makes very passive aggressive posts on people's pictures on facebooks about how they are being "lewd" and "immoral"
What the fuck am I supposed to do in this situation? What the fuck is anyone supposed to do in this situation? Is the right choice to ignore it? What if this person ends up committing a similar crime and I end up living the rest of my life knowing I could have done something to prevent it? What if he does nothing and I'm just wasting my time worrying about it?
It is not your business. It is up to his parents, family, and close friends to keep him in line.
Some info for those not listening: 7 fatalities and 13 injured; 4 by the suspect vehicle, 8 gun shot and 1 sustained minor injury. 3 hand guns from suspect's vehicle. All legally purchased and all registered to the suspect. Had > 400 rounds of ammunition in his possession.
3 male victims in his apartment. They were stabbed. Still trying to identify them.
I read through most of it because I thought it would be valuable to understand how someone could go down this path, and also because I went to UCSB and am deeply saddened by this event. It was deeply disturbing. Overall, I think he had an inflated (and unfounded) sense of self-worth, and was confused and angry that people (mainly girls) did not take the initiative to serve his needs without any effort from him. He had an extremely warped understanding of people and how they perceive other people. In an effort to meet girls he would sit by himself in a restaurant for hours, and would go home frustrated that no girl came up to him to ask him on a date. He never figured out that as an individual, the ball is in your court to meet people. He wrote about social coaches and friends that tried to give him advice, but he was so fixated on his anger at seeing happy couples around him that he probably didn't listen or didn't process the advice they gave him. He didn't realize that extreme arrogance and rude behavior combined with ignorance is the worst combination of traits a person can have. No amount of hugo boss, armani, or expensive jeweley (which he was sure was the solution) can make up for this. This is why nobody wanted to be around him.
A particularly revealing event he described was a trip to London where he got VIP access to a Katy Perry concert due to family connections. When he was walking the "black carpet" amongst celebrities he spoke of people in the audience as "sheep" and mocked them. It seems he didn't realize how hypocritical his behavior was, as people dismissing him throughout his life was the root of his anger.
His frustration and anger snowballed until he finally decided that he needed to be extremely rich for people to desire him, and in hopes of getting rich he blew thousands of dollars on lottery tickets. He thought he was _meant_ to win. This alone sheds light on his underlying mental illness -- possibly some form of schizophrenia. When he failed to win, this was his breaking point, and he starting coming up with a detailed plan for his so-called "day of retribution."
Apparently his plan was to murder his little brother and step-mother, and then target the alpha phi sorority house in isla vista, and finally go on a rampage down del playa st. We know the third event happened. I just hope the first two events didn't.
I read through most of it because I thought it would be valuable to understand how someone could go down this path, and also because I went to UCSB and am deeply saddened by this event. It was deeply disturbing. Overall, I think he had an inflated (and unfounded) sense of self-worth, and was confused and angry that people (mainly girls) did not take the initiative to serve his needs without any effort from him. He had an extremely warped understanding of people and how they perceive other people. In an effort to meet girls he would sit by himself in a restaurant for hours, and would go home frustrated that no girl came up to him to ask him on a date. He never figured out that as an individual, the ball is in your court to meet people. He wrote about social coaches and friends that tried to give him advice, but he was so fixated on his anger at seeing happy couples around him that he probably didn't listen or didn't process the advice they gave him. He didn't realize that extreme arrogance and rude behavior combined with ignorance is the worst combination of traits a person can have. No amount of hugo boss, armani, or expensive jeweley (which he was sure was the solution) can make up for this. This is why nobody wanted to be around him.
A particularly revealing event he described was a trip to London where he got VIP access to a Katy Perry concert due to family connections. When he was walking the "black carpet" amongst celebrities he spoke of people in the audience as "sheep" and mocked them. It seems he didn't realize how hypocritical his behavior was, as people dismissing him throughout his life was the root of his anger.
His frustration and anger snowballed until he finally decided that he needed to be extremely rich for people to desire him, and in hopes of getting rich he blew thousands of dollars on lottery tickets. He thought he was _meant_ to win. This alone sheds light on his underlying mental illness -- possibly some form of schizophrenia. When he failed to win, this was his breaking point, and he starting coming up with a detailed plan for his so-called "day of retribution."
Apparently his plan was to murder his little brother and step-mother, and then target the alpha phi sorority house in isla vista, and finally go on a rampage down del playa st. We know the third event happened. I just hope the first two events didn't.
how did you manage to find this? The police never mentioned anything about his little brother and step-mother so I think he just went to the sorority first. The stream just said this last part as well.
Seems like local news. In Calgary 5 people got stabbed to death a few weeks back, this doesn't seem much different. These events happen on more than a weekly basis throughout the western world, I don't think anything ever comes out of this discussion.
Either way, shitty to hear, hope as many involved are as okay as possible.
I read through most of it because I thought it would be valuable to understand how someone could go down this path, and also because I went to UCSB and am deeply saddened by this event. It was deeply disturbing. Overall, I think he had an inflated (and unfounded) sense of self-worth, and was confused and angry that people (mainly girls) did not take the initiative to serve his needs without any effort from him. He had an extremely warped understanding of people and how they perceive other people. In an effort to meet girls he would sit by himself in a restaurant for hours, and would go home frustrated that no girl came up to him to ask him on a date. He never figured out that as an individual, the ball is in your court to meet people. He wrote about social coaches and friends that tried to give him advice, but he was so fixated on his anger at seeing happy couples around him that he probably didn't listen or didn't process the advice they gave him. He didn't realize that extreme arrogance and rude behavior combined with ignorance is the worst combination of traits a person can have. No amount of hugo boss, armani, or expensive jeweley (which he was sure was the solution) can make up for this. This is why nobody wanted to be around him.
A particularly revealing event he described was a trip to London where he got VIP access to a Katy Perry concert due to family connections. When he was walking the "black carpet" amongst celebrities he spoke of people in the audience as "sheep" and mocked them. It seems he didn't realize how hypocritical his behavior was, as people dismissing him throughout his life was the root of his anger.
His frustration and anger snowballed until he finally decided that he needed to be extremely rich for people to desire him, and in hopes of getting rich he blew thousands of dollars on lottery tickets. He thought he was _meant_ to win. This alone sheds light on his underlying mental illness -- possibly some form of schizophrenia. When he failed to win, this was his breaking point, and he starting coming up with a detailed plan for his so-called "day of retribution."
Apparently his plan was to murder his little brother and step-mother, and then target the alpha phi sorority house in isla vista, and finally go on a rampage down del playa st. We know the third event happened. I just hope the first two events didn't.
how did you manage to find this? The police never mentioned anything about his little brother and step-mother so I think he just went to the sorority first. The stream just said this last part as well.
On May 25 2014 10:12 FiWiFaKi wrote: Are these news really necessary?
Seems like local news. In Calgary 5 people got stabbed to death a few weeks back, this doesn't seem much different. These events happen on more than a weekly basis throughout the western world, I don't think anything ever comes out of this discussion.
Either way, shitty to hear, hope as many involved are as okay as possible.
Somewhat agree. Of course it's sad that people died, but people pretty much get stabbed and murdered and whatnot all the time. I'm not sure how newsworthy it is. For example if we compare the scale to something like what's going in in Ukraine.
Seems like it's just going to be derailed into a guns vs no guns discussion just like every other shooting thread.
This guy was a complete and utter lunatic. Read his manifesto. This was FAR from being a guy pushed at the edge. This guy was mentally ill, he even felt he was entitled to win the super megajackpott lottery.
Madness of this sort is caused by a warping of meanings and a kind of cyclic psychopathology. That is to say, you feel bad, so you make up reasons why you feel bad, you start needing to find more justification for those reasons, so you start manufacturing evidence where there is none and seeing the reasons everywhere, which makes you feel worse, which requires you make up more reasons etc.
Repeat a few dozen times and you get someone who has lost all touch with reality and is in, as mentioned, a quite literally inconceivable amount of psychological pain.
The situations in which this kind of thing happens tend to occur on the fringes of the social spectrum, as here. So yes, he is a lunatic, but social expectations and a system unsuited for him created that lunacy. It was not an inherent thing he was somehow born with.
On May 25 2014 10:12 FiWiFaKi wrote: Are these news really necessary?
Seems like local news. In Calgary 5 people got stabbed to death a few weeks back, this doesn't seem much different. These events happen on more than a weekly basis throughout the western world, I don't think anything ever comes out of this discussion.
Either way, shitty to hear, hope as many involved are as okay as possible.
Somewhat agree. Of course it's sad that people died, but people pretty much get stabbed and murdered and whatnot all the time. I'm not sure how newsworthy it is. For example if we compare the scale to something like what's going in in Ukraine.
Seems like it's just going to be derailed into a guns vs no guns discussion just like every other shooting thread.
Maybe one thread to compile them all then. Having said that, there's no reason to not post it either. Good to stay informed imo.
I read through most of it because I thought it would be valuable to understand how someone could go down this path, and also because I went to UCSB and am deeply saddened by this event. It was deeply disturbing. Overall, I think he had an inflated (and unfounded) sense of self-worth, and was confused and angry that people (mainly girls) did not take the initiative to serve his needs without any effort from him. He had an extremely warped understanding of people and how they perceive other people. In an effort to meet girls he would sit by himself in a restaurant for hours, and would go home frustrated that no girl came up to him to ask him on a date. He never figured out that as an individual, the ball is in your court to meet people. He wrote about social coaches and friends that tried to give him advice, but he was so fixated on his anger at seeing happy couples around him that he probably didn't listen or didn't process the advice they gave him. He didn't realize that extreme arrogance and rude behavior combined with ignorance is the worst combination of traits a person can have. No amount of hugo boss, armani, or expensive jeweley (which he was sure was the solution) can make up for this. This is why nobody wanted to be around him.
A particularly revealing event he described was a trip to London where he got VIP access to a Katy Perry concert due to family connections. When he was walking the "black carpet" amongst celebrities he spoke of people in the audience as "sheep" and mocked them. It seems he didn't realize how hypocritical his behavior was, as people dismissing him throughout his life was the root of his anger.
His frustration and anger snowballed until he finally decided that he needed to be extremely rich for people to desire him, and in hopes of getting rich he blew thousands of dollars on lottery tickets. He thought he was _meant_ to win. This alone sheds light on his underlying mental illness -- possibly some form of schizophrenia. When he failed to win, this was his breaking point, and he starting coming up with a detailed plan for his so-called "day of retribution."
Apparently his plan was to murder his little brother and step-mother, and then target the alpha phi sorority house in isla vista, and finally go on a rampage down del playa st. We know the third event happened. I just hope the first two events didn't.
how did you manage to find this? The police never mentioned anything about his little brother and step-mother so I think he just went to the sorority first. The stream just said this last part as well.
This guy was a complete and utter lunatic. Read his manifesto. This was FAR from being a guy pushed at the edge. This guy was mentally ill, he even felt he was entitled to win the super megajackpott lottery.
Madness of this sort is caused by a warping of meanings and a kind of cyclic psychopathology. That is to say, you feel bad, so you make up reasons why you feel bad, you start needing to find more justification for those reasons, so you start manufacturing evidence where there is none and seeing the reasons everywhere, which makes you feel worse, which requires you make up more reasons etc.
Repeat a few dozen times and you get someone who has lost all touch with reality and is in, as mentioned, a quite literally inconceivable amount of psychological pain.
The situations in which this kind of thing happens tend to occur on the fringes of the social spectrum, as here. So yes, he is a lunatic, but social expectations and a system unsuited for him created that lunacy. It was not an inherent thing he was somehow born with.
That's not really an argument you can make unless you have had extensive therapy sessions with him or have had conversations with someone who has done so. Biological, inherited mental illness is a real thing, we've passed the era of freudian psychoanalysis. It is very possible that he was 'born' a lunatic. Not all mental illness is solely a result of social/environmental stimuli. Is there some aspect of society that may have contributed to his problems? Yes, absolutely, but I think to say that social constructs are somehow responsible for his crimes is disingenuous.
I will give you the point though that it is only the social constructs that we (as bystanders) can actually do anything about. I do agree that demonizing him as a lunatic and trying to distill him down to something subhuman is problematic (and in many ways hypocritical), but at the same time, you can't just absolve him of his crimes, just because you think that society is being unfair to him.
also, @ the people wondering why this is newsworthy, people seem to have greater interest in school shootings than your average 'run of the mill' murders (if you can say such a thing).
Can someone upload it somewhere (PDF) before it gets taken down? This guy describe his entire childhood. It's a glimpse into the mind of a delusional killer. I tried copy and paste the text, but the text becomes encrypted.
On May 25 2014 09:19 GozoShioda wrote: Okay now I'm a bit paranoid.
I know a guy exactly like this one (except he's not as rich as the one here), who I used to go to school with and he added me on Facebook one day. My news feed every once in a while pops up with posts from him whose contents are EXTREMELY similar to the content of the youtube videos of the perpetrator in this case. I don't mean to be judgmental but I think it's pretty evident that this guy I know is a virgin since he never really socialized with people during school events and from my knowledge he never had a girlfriend. He always makes very passive aggressive posts on people's pictures on facebooks about how they are being "lewd" and "immoral"
What the fuck am I supposed to do in this situation? What the fuck is anyone supposed to do in this situation? Is the right choice to ignore it? What if this person ends up committing a similar crime and I end up living the rest of my life knowing I could have done something to prevent it? What if he does nothing and I'm just wasting my time worrying about it?
It seems like both your acquaintance and this killer probably frequented a specific board of 4chan called /r9k/ which has a lot of rhetoric around "chads" and "beta-revolution". Problem is that some people take it too seriously.
The main problem of this guy seemed to be his complete inability to socialize correctly.
Would be nice if the US wasn't infested with guns and it wasn't so easy to grab 3 semi-automatic handguns and 41 full ten round magazines on any homicidal or suicidal whim. There are 85 gun deaths per day in the US, yet it only makes the news when it's some kind of single massacre.
On May 25 2014 13:30 FallDownMarigold wrote: Would be nice if the US wasn't infested with guns and it wasn't so easy to grab 3 semi-automatic handguns and 41 full ten round magazines on any homicidal or suicidal whim. There are 85 gun deaths per day in the US, yet it only makes the news when it's some kind of single massacre.
85 gun deaths per day in the US. Only 6 of those are not accidental, suicide or gang related. They should still report about those few, but I guess suicide, accidents and gang violence is not something they want to report on everyday.
to be honest i'm already densensitised by this stuff, it seems to occur few times a year followed by temporary outrage at gun laws and nothing will change. i believe it is too late to do anything, guns have proliferated to the point that you have no chance to eliminate how easily attainable it is.
On May 25 2014 13:30 FallDownMarigold wrote: Would be nice if the US wasn't infested with guns and it wasn't so easy to grab 3 semi-automatic handguns and 41 full ten round magazines on any homicidal or suicidal whim. There are 85 gun deaths per day in the US, yet it only makes the news when it's some kind of single massacre.
Gotta love inflated statistics. 53 of thoses "guns deaths" are suicide. So its about 30 a day. And then once you remove all the deaths because of gang on gang violence, you really dont have that many.
I'm mostly living in LA, a couple hours away from UC Santa Barbara. This is an absolutely monstrous crime, from an insanely disturbed bastard. From what it looks like, there was zero motivation of any kind for this. Killing for the sake of it. Just an extremely disturbed mind and serious psychological issues. Seriously, wtf. There were apparently warning signs too? How come no one who was observing the sorts of things he was saying/doing realized that something could be very wrong with this guy? Just because he's a rich white kid? Unbelievable and very tragic event.
On May 25 2014 14:57 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I'm mostly living in LA, a couple hours away from UC Santa Barbara. This is an absolutely monstrous crime, from an insanely disturbed bastard. From what it looks like, there was zero motivation of any kind for this. Killing for the sake of it. Just an extremely disturbed mind and serious psychological issues. Seriously, wtf. There were apparently warning signs too? How come no one who was observing the sorts of things he was saying/doing realized that something could be very wrong with this guy? Just because he's a rich white kid? Unbelievable and very tragic event.
Can someone upload it somewhere (PDF) before it gets taken down? This guy describe his entire childhood. It's a glimpse into the mind of a delusional killer. I tried copy and paste the text, but the text becomes encrypted.
yea I wanted to DL it too. Fucking scribd ..... Hopefully it's a matter of time until someone hacks/get's past it.
Please do PM me if you happen to be able to save it and read my message and are very kind :D
On May 25 2014 15:28 Emerson_H wrote: A guy goes on a killing spree because he couldn't get laid. Funny and sad.
Unsurprisingly enough it's hard to get laid when you're delusional hahahaha
but at the same time, you can't just absolve him of his crimes, just because you think that society is being unfair to him.
Oh that's absolutely not what I'm trying to do. Personal responsibility is still a thing. In my book, you don't get excused from your actions for any reason, be it mental illness, inebriation, provocation, self defense, whatever. If you take an action, you are responsible for it. What worries me is the vilification and thoughtless (rather than thoughtful) anger that take place in the wake of these events may actually bring on the next one. My view is, while superficially humanist, fundamentally pragmatic.
I think a more empathetic approach would mean more people like this would seek help or confide in their friends rather than being terrified of judgement and isolation, and that help and those friends would be more capable of dealing with someone like this in a constructive way. In some small way we netizens can be responsible and more restrained in our lashing out and contribute to that effort.
If at 22, he can get a nice brand new BMW, he can have sex. Just pay for it! Prostitution in this case could had prevented murder. He might not have to relieve his sexual frustration via a gun.
The entitlement of sex due to his fortunate upbringing is disturbing.
but at the same time, you can't just absolve him of his crimes, just because you think that society is being unfair to him.
Oh that's absolutely not what I'm trying to do. Personal responsibility is still a thing. In my book, you don't get excused from your actions for any reason, be it mental illness, inebriation, provocation, self defense, whatever. If you take an action, you are responsible for it. What worries me is the vilification and thoughtless (rather than thoughtful) anger that take place in the wake of these events may actually bring on the next one. My view is, while superficially humanist, fundamentally pragmatic.
I think a more empathetic approach would mean more people like this would seek help or confide in their friends rather than being terrified of judgement and isolation, and that help and those friends would be more capable of dealing with someone like this in a constructive way. In some small way we netizens can be responsible and more restrained in our lashing out and contribute to that effort.
If you read any of the manifesto you would know he's been in therapy for years, his parents have put him through every type of life coaching and therapy available, and it did nothing. This isn't a case of someone being terrified of judgement and isolation, this is a case of a complete nut case not being apprehended before he had a melt down.
Empathising with a psychopath is fundamentally impossible, in much the same way that empathising with a lion or dog is. They're just too different from a functioning human to get in the head of. This goes both ways, meaning no amount of therapy will ever 'cure' a psychopath.
On May 25 2014 18:16 [X]Ken_D wrote: If at 22, he can get a nice brand new BMW, he can have sex. Just pay for it! Prostitution in this case could had prevented murder. He might not have to relieve his sexual frustration via a gun.
The entitlement of sex due to his fortunate upbringing is disturbing.
On May 25 2014 18:16 [X]Ken_D wrote: If at 22, he can get a nice brand new BMW, he can have sex. Just pay for it! Prostitution in this case could had prevented murder. He might not have to relieve his sexual frustration via a gun.
The entitlement of sex due to his fortunate upbringing is disturbing.
Rich kid sitting in a new BMW his parents bought him talking about how life is unfair because women don't throw themselves at him.... Kills a bunch of people because of that? Don't think prostitutes could have fixed that much crazy.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
On May 25 2014 18:20 bo1b wrote: If you read any of the manifesto you would know he's been in therapy for years, his parents have put him through every type of life coaching and therapy available, and it did nothing. This isn't a case of someone being terrified of judgement and isolation, this is a case of a complete nut case not being apprehended before he had a melt down.
Empathising with a psychopath is fundamentally impossible, in much the same way that empathising with a lion or dog is. They're just too different from a functioning human to get in the head of. This goes both ways, meaning no amount of therapy will ever 'cure' a psychopath.
And who has ever felt sorry for the misfortunes of a pet? Look at their fur! Their paws! How could they possibly think like me?
On May 25 2014 18:16 [X]Ken_D wrote: If at 22, he can get a nice brand new BMW, he can have sex. Just pay for it! Prostitution in this case could had prevented murder. He might not have to relieve his sexual frustration via a gun.
The entitlement of sex due to his fortunate upbringing is disturbing.
I think that would not work for him since I think his problem was more that he wanted someone to want to have sex with him, otherwise he could just have gone on a rape-spree instead.
On May 25 2014 20:37 urboss wrote: Here are some random notes from his manifest:
His parents divorced when he was 8 years old.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
Some of these mirror my life eerily closely. Although at the end he was off the deep end I'm sure there was a time before that in which he could have had a different path and ended up a very different person.
On May 25 2014 21:03 PVJ wrote: "Officers found him to be a 'perfectly polite, kind and wonderful human'" WOAH
How is that surprising ? This guy apparently had numerous therapies, and none proved successful. It's very easy to hide who you truely are, faking politeness is probably the easiest form of that.
Now I wonder why people try so hard to rationalize how this happened. Would seems to me as some form of distanciation. It really makes me think of a book, which title is, in french "La part de l'autre". Seems like there's no english translation, which is a shame. It's about Hitler, with the underlying idea that, although people wants to see him as a monster, was just a human being. A string of complicated events/reactions, and boom, drama. Not much to get out of these stories (back to this Elliot guy) except that shit happens...
This might be a controversial post but I am going to say it anyway: Of course the guy had serious mental issues but upon reading most of his 140-page manifesto for last two hours, it is clear that monster in him was a product of an ugly, failed marriage between two very opportunistic and vain people. The British father is money-hungry director in Hollywood while his biological Chinese mother is an opportunistic woman who constantly seeks out new rich men to date and continue her lifestyle. He is, in fact, a product of unplanned pregnancy between these two people whose relationship probably distilled down to pure carnal desire and greed for money. As he is subjected to an ugly divorce and childhood that is bereft of genuine parental care and love, he only knows life as he sees in the glamours yet empty culture of LA -- as measured purely by how much money one has and how much sex one is getting.
So when he sees that he is not measuring up to these standards, compounded with identity issues, he undergoes severe depression and resorts to such horrific actions. This is why I view many white male-asian female marriages with some skepticism as I suspect that many of these unions are essentially driven purely by sexual fetishism from the male and financial opportunism (and perhaps some fetishization too) from the female. And their son, who is seen to by society as being more Asian than White, exists only because the Asian man was deemed insufficient and un-masculine by his own mother, yet he lives as a Asian male. Very similar thoughts are expressed by people with AF/WM parents here: http://stuffeurasianslike.wordpress.com/ http://halfasianhalfdead.wordpress.com/
Of course, I am sure there also exist genuinely loving couples who are AF/WM, and I give my full blessings to them and their children who might not have such deep-seated issues. Also to reiterate, the guy obviously has severe mental issues that led to the shooting, but you cannot deny that there are serious underlying cultural/social problems that compounded or perhaps contributed to these psychiatric issues.
Also looking at the similarities between this guy's life and Cho Seung-hee's, I definitely think there needs to be an initiative to really help kids fit in better in school; the teenage years can be a brutal time if you are not part of the "crowd," and the pressures to fit in, especially as a young person undergoing puberty, can be truly traumatizing. Of course, the vast majority of those who suffer through this do not become mass murderers (this issue needs to be compounded by some sort of mental instability) but I do think this would be a very worthwhile issue to be put to the front, as we can also seek to lessen the agony of many many kids.
On May 25 2014 20:37 urboss wrote: Here are some random notes from his manifest:
His parents divorced when he was 8 years old.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
Some of these mirror my life eerily closely. Although at the end he was off the deep end I'm sure there was a time before that in which he could have had a different path and ended up a very different person.
Sure, I'm certain that there are millions of people out there with the same kind of story. Most of them will cope eventually.
I'm not even sure that there is something wrong with his mind per se as many people say. Most likely he was quite intelligent and as he says himself, he had a perfectly normal and happy childhood. Things only started going wrong when he got into puberty.
A series of events triggered some weird thought process inside of him. And every new event led him to intensify that thought process. So circular thinking made him to view the world in a certain way from which he had no way of getting out of.
Which makes me wonder: How many people are out there that have a similarly screwed up thought process and just lack the determination and opportunity to execute it?
On May 25 2014 20:37 urboss wrote: Here are some random notes from his manifest:
His parents divorced when he was 8 years old.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
Some of these mirror my life eerily closely. Although at the end he was off the deep end I'm sure there was a time before that in which he could have had a different path and ended up a very different person.
Sure, I'm certain that there are millions of people out there with the same kind of story. Most of them will cope eventually.
I'm not even sure that there is something wrong with his mind per se as many people say. Most likely he was quite intelligent and as he says himself, he had a perfectly normal and happy childhood. Things only started going wrong when he got into puberty.
A series of events triggered some weird thought process inside of him. And every new event led him to intensify that thought process. So circular thinking made him to view the world in a certain way from which he had no way of getting out of.
Which makes me wonder: How many people are out there that have a similarly screwed up thought process and just lack the determination and opportunity to execute it?
I've seen report of him having Asperger syndrome. Now I'm not fond of these "boxes" to fit people in when it comes to psychology, but it's pretty clear when you watch his videos that there's a pattern of thinking that keeps repeating itself, in an obssessive form. If you think about it in a pure synaptic way, repeating the same stuff reinforces linked connections. But again, just a piece of a very complicated puzzle....
On May 25 2014 20:37 urboss wrote: Here are some random notes from his manifest:
His parents divorced when he was 8 years old.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
Some of these mirror my life eerily closely. Although at the end he was off the deep end I'm sure there was a time before that in which he could have had a different path and ended up a very different person.
Sure, I'm certain that there are millions of people out there with the same kind of story. Most of them will cope eventually.
I'm not even sure that there is something wrong with his mind per se as many people say. Most likely he was quite intelligent and as he says himself, he had a perfectly normal and happy childhood. Things only started going wrong when he got into puberty.
A series of events triggered some weird thought process inside of him. And every new event led him to intensify that thought process. So circular thinking made him to view the world in a certain way from which he had no way of getting out of.
Which makes me wonder: How many people are out there that have a similarly screwed up thought process and just lack the determination and opportunity to execute it?
I've seen report of him having Asperger syndrome. Now I'm not fond of these "boxes" to fit people in when it comes to psychology, but it's pretty clear when you watch his videos that there's a pattern of thinking that keeps repeating itself, in an obssessive form. If you think about it in a pure synaptic way, repeating the same stuff reinforces linked connections. But again, just a piece of a very complicated puzzle....
Well, Asperger Syndrome doesn't say a whole lot. The term itself is not even used anymore because there are many different levels of autism. About 1 in 100 people do have some form autism, which is about 70 million people in this world. Most often autism is not even diagnosed as a defect.
But you are right, the propensity to think in repeating patterns may be genetically defined.
On May 25 2014 20:37 urboss wrote: Here are some random notes from his manifest:
His parents divorced when he was 8 years old.
He realized that he wasn't one of the cool kids in school, he was shy and plain. This decreased his self-esteem.
He was of a mixed race, half Asian, half White.
He reached puberty late and was usually shorter than most girls. He realized that the girls only flocked around the obnoxious jerks and that the world doesn't reward gentlemen.
He was known as "The Quiet Kid".
Once, at a summer camp, he accidentally bumped into a pretty girl and the girl in turn got very angry: she cursed him and embarrassed him in front of his friends. This experience traumatized him at the age of eleven.
Later he was teased and ridiculed by the girl he had a crush on. He got bullied a lot in school from age 13 onwards which in turn made him even more shy. Also, he had to change schools which made things more complicated for a shy kid.
He started playing lots of computer games, in particular he became a WoW addict. He didn't have any skills other than WoW.
He had no friends and was very lonely which made him angrier and angrier. He realized that no girl is ever going to have sex with him and he became envious of other people who did have sex. He wanted to punish those people who had sex. This is when he started forming more and more radical ideas (age 16).
He started reading lots of books and started formulating philosophical ideas about the world. He started blaming society and women for his rejections. His envy rage led him to have his first killing fantasies at age 19.
He was a fan of Game of Thrones. He started reading PUA and discovered the PUAHate.com website which intensified his hatred.
He saw himself as a beautiful and magnificent gentleman.
He set a date for the Day of Retribution. When it came closer he said to himself: "I will be a god, and they will all be animals that I can slaughter."
Some of these mirror my life eerily closely. Although at the end he was off the deep end I'm sure there was a time before that in which he could have had a different path and ended up a very different person.
Sure, I'm certain that there are millions of people out there with the same kind of story. Most of them will cope eventually.
I'm not even sure that there is something wrong with his mind per se as many people say. Most likely he was quite intelligent and as he says himself, he had a perfectly normal and happy childhood. Things only started going wrong when he got into puberty.
A series of events triggered some weird thought process inside of him. And every new event led him to intensify that thought process. So circular thinking made him to view the world in a certain way from which he had no way of getting out of.
Which makes me wonder: How many people are out there that have a similarly screwed up thought process and just lack the determination and opportunity to execute it?
I've seen report of him having Asperger syndrome. Now I'm not fond of these "boxes" to fit people in when it comes to psychology, but it's pretty clear when you watch his videos that there's a pattern of thinking that keeps repeating itself, in an obssessive form. If you think about it in a pure synaptic way, repeating the same stuff reinforces linked connections. But again, just a piece of a very complicated puzzle....
Well, Asperger Syndrome doesn't say a whole lot. The term itself is not even used anymore because there are many different levels of autism. About 1 in 100 people do have some form autism, which is about 70 million people in this world. Most often autism is not even diagnosed as a defect.
That's exactly why I don't like these boxes. I was just pointing out that some people used that as a convenient excuse, and that he indeed had some form of obssessive repetition of his thoughts, which I think was part of the symptoms of said syndrom.
On May 25 2014 18:16 [X]Ken_D wrote: If at 22, he can get a nice brand new BMW, he can have sex. Just pay for it! Prostitution in this case could had prevented murder. He might not have to relieve his sexual frustration via a gun.
The entitlement of sex due to his fortunate upbringing is disturbing.
Someone like him wouldn't deign to pay for sex - that's well below him. In his mind, he should be offered sex because he is sophisticated, rich, dresses well, such a catch, etc.
On May 25 2014 23:41 Crushinator wrote: Wow, those videos are very strange. The weird movie villain laughs and rhetoric make it seem so surreal that he actually went out and did it.
Same. He spoke so unashamedly in dramatic fashion that I thought he was acting (skipped article and watched video first).
Apparently the rallying call to stop male entitlement has been sounded. His romantic frustrations were just part of the picture, he appears to have been disturbed and had delusional opinions on a great number of things.
I've been reading a lot about this since Santa Barbara is my home town. The kid quite obviously had mental health problems. A couple days before his shooting his random postings around the internet even had people comparing him to Patrick Bateman. Sources say (I'm not sure how reliable they are this soon after the event) that he had been seeing psychiatrists for years and was put on antipsychotics but he stopped taking them. His parents even called the police to warn them about his potentially dangerous behavior due to some of his youtube videos.
Despite all the warning signs, alerts, and help he was given, what more could have even been done? Have him forcefully committed? This isn't some kid who slipped through the cracks, people took notice of everything he was doing and his rampage still happened. I guess that's what i find most interesting about all this. Maybe some of these gruesome events are just near impossible to prevent from happening.
I'm not sure of the specifics in terms of state law, or indeed whether he procured the weapons himself, I thought such things were meant to be flagged by the background checks.
On May 25 2014 22:07 phosphorylation wrote: This might be a controversial post but I am going to say it anyway: Of course the guy had serious mental issues but upon reading most of his 140-page manifesto for last two hours, it is clear that monster in him was a product of an ugly, failed marriage between two very opportunistic and vain people. The British father is money-hungry director in Hollywood while his biological Chinese mother is an opportunistic woman who constantly seeks out new rich men to date and continue her lifestyle. He is, in fact, a product of unplanned pregnancy between these two people whose relationship probably distilled down to pure carnal desire and greed for money. As he is subjected to an ugly divorce and childhood that is bereft of genuine parental care and love, he only knows life as he sees in the glamours yet empty culture of LA -- as measured purely by how much money one has and how much sex one is getting.
So when he sees that he is not measuring up to these standards, compounded with identity issues, he undergoes severe depression and resorts to such horrific actions. This is why I view many white male-asian female marriages with some skepticism as I suspect that many of these unions are essentially driven purely by sexual fetishism from the male and financial opportunism (and perhaps some fetishization too) from the female. And their son, who is seen to by society as being more Asian than White, exists only because the Asian man was deemed insufficient and un-masculine by his own mother, yet he lives as a Asian male. Very similar thoughts are expressed by people with AF/WM parents here: http://stuffeurasianslike.wordpress.com/ http://halfasianhalfdead.wordpress.com/
Of course, I am sure there also exist genuinely loving couples who are AF/WM, and I give my full blessings to them and their children who might not have such deep-seated issues. Also to reiterate, the guy obviously has severe mental issues that led to the shooting, but you cannot deny that there are serious underlying cultural/social problems that compounded or perhaps contributed to these psychiatric issues.
Also looking at the similarities between this guy's life and Cho Seung-hee's, I definitely think there needs to be an initiative to really help kids fit in better in school; the teenage years can be a brutal time if you are not part of the "crowd," and the pressures to fit in, especially as a young person undergoing puberty, can be truly traumatizing. Of course, the vast majority of those who suffer through this do not become mass murderers (this issue needs to be compounded by some sort of mental instability) but I do think this would be a very worthwhile issue to be put to the front, as we can also seek to lessen the agony of many many kids.
I'm sorry, but this is just you projecting some very unrelated (and frankly, racist) views.
First, you have reached your conclusion on the character of his parents via his manifesto, which are at best the one sided ramblings of a young adult, or at worst the delusional rants of someone suffering from mental illness. In what way would this be a reliable document to infer the character of his parents?
Second, even if his parents were as bad as you think, what that got to do with their ethnicity? They were just bad parents. Any parent can fail to prioritise their child, not just white male Asian female pairings!
Third, it is astonishing that you can acknowledge that he might have a mental problem but in the same sentence say that the monster in him was due to a failed marriage. What happened to the mental illness? Marriages fail all over the place and sometimes in worst circumstances. Not all the kids turn into monsters.
Fourth, you lengthy frolick into mix marriages is really besides the point and has no bearing on this shooting. If such mixed marriages were as proved to catastrophic failure, then where are all the mixed kids going on shootings?
Seriously dude reread your post and think about what it says about your internal prejudices. The point isn't even entirely relevant here but you've gone to such pains to argue it.
Edit:
I saw this on gawker. Whatever you views are on gun laws, this is pretty tough to listen to:
I read bits and pieces of the manifesto and watched the videos. I don't think this guy is really that much a product of his environment and upbringing. I think he is completely mentally ill.
Reminds me of those guys who were driving around sniping people in the Washington(?) area some years back. Condolences to the victims and their families. At least the incident reached a conclusion on the same night and the perpetrator isn't still at large.
Disgusting. What a sick individual. He talks about being insulted by the mere sight of people being together, and being insulted by their happiness. Rotting in loneliness, woe is me, blah blah blah. What did he believe he was accomplishing through all this I wonder? Was he trying to get back at all the happy people are are forcing his unhappiness? I don't even get it man..
I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, but had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
You try to hard to relate the actions of one insane individual to that of normal people. This is a case that is at most interesting to professionals dealing with mentally ill, but nothing that holds lectures for the general public.
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.
wow.. talk about trying to force your world view on a situation and coming up with a really lousy analysis in the process. Are you a gender studies major or something? This guy had something way more fundamentally wrong with him than "male entitlement."
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
But he wasn't just sad. He hated seeing couples that were happy, holding hands, kissing etc. Everyone can relate to longing for someone to love them, yea, but to target people that are happy simply because you aren't is disgusting. He put such a huge emphasis on having a relationship because he didn't have a girl, but man if he did get a girl he'd realize quickly it's not all heavenly as he believes it is. Girls aren't all golden angels descending upon us to shower us in blowjobs, steak and endless love. This guy wanted endless, unquestionable love - he didn't want just a girlfriend. He wasn't looking to hook up with girls, he wanted to find a soul mate. And that shit just doesn't fall out of the sky. He has such a misconstrued idea as to what a relationship is, he believed it was more important than anything else in the world - even his and other's lives.
I'm going to say this stems from issues a lot deeper than simply not having a girlfriend or interactions. I wonder how his relationship with his mom was.
Currently skimming as quickly as I can through this guy's manifesto...
From what I can gather, this sort of thing occurs as the perfect storm of factors...an individual with a poor temperament and extremely narcissistic personality is born into a privileged family (which breaks up at young age) whose parents aren't ever really available to him on an emotional level, combined with a bad teenage experience at school of being perpetually bullied.
I went through similar experiences to him during my 3rd-8th years at school; being the shortest, weakest kid, getting bullied, being shy, having difficulty reconciling my emotions towards females due to poor self-esteem, using video-games as a coping mechanism etc. I can empathise with him...to a certain point.
PS. If you think I condone his actions by empathising, this is 100% not true. There is a clear distinction between empathy which means understanding an emotional state, versus understanding the logic behind deciding to slaughter innocent people which is obviously fucked up.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
But he wasn't just sad. He hated seeing couples that were happy, holding hands, kissing etc. Everyone can relate to longing for someone to love them, yea, but to target people that are happy simply because you aren't is disgusting. He put such a huge emphasis on having a relationship because he didn't have a girl, but man if he did get a girl he'd realize quickly it's not all heavenly as he believes it is. Girls aren't all golden angels descending upon us to shower us in blowjobs, steak and endless love. This guy wanted endless, unquestionable love - he didn't want just a girlfriend. He wasn't looking to hook up with girls, he wanted to find a soul mate. And that shit just doesn't fall out of the sky. He has such a misconstrued idea as to what a relationship is, he believed it was more important than anything else in the world - even his and other's lives.
I'm going to say this stems from issues a lot deeper than simply not having a girlfriend or interactions. I wonder how his relationship with his mom was.
If he had found a gf there would have been something else that he could not succeed in and that would have made him mad. Maybe this gf would have ended up dead then.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail.
I'm pretty sure this is an example of "mental illness > can't get a girl", not "can't get a girl > mental illness". The fact that he himself couldn't recognize this puts him squarely into the "psychotic" section.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
But he wasn't just sad. He hated seeing couples that were happy, holding hands, kissing etc. Everyone can relate to longing for someone to love them, yea, but to target people that are happy simply because you aren't is disgusting. He put such a huge emphasis on having a relationship because he didn't have a girl, but man if he did get a girl he'd realize quickly it's not all heavenly as he believes it is. Girls aren't all golden angels descending upon us to shower us in blowjobs, steak and endless love. This guy wanted endless, unquestionable love - he didn't want just a girlfriend. He wasn't looking to hook up with girls, he wanted to find a soul mate. And that shit just doesn't fall out of the sky. He has such a misconstrued idea as to what a relationship is, he believed it was more important than anything else in the world - even his and other's lives.
I'm going to say this stems from issues a lot deeper than simply not having a girlfriend or interactions. I wonder how his relationship with his mom was.
Well I agree with you that a relationship to most people isn't as heavenly as it may seem, but we always think of it as something better than it really is before we have one, don't we?
How would you know how shitty a relationship is before you've had one? In my opinion, a good relationship is one of the better things in life, and you really have no way to know [how good or how bad it is] before you experience it. Don't tell me you've never been jealous of some friend who told you a sex story or just had sex before you did. I think it's natural for a guys mind to lust that.
He might've wanted endless love, but odds are, if he found a relationship, he would've understood it better, he'd see how his body responded to this relationship, he could put himself into the shoes of those who have a relationship, instead of alienating them to animals that propagate this cruel world. I don't know, but if you face endless rejection, and all your efforts fail, you have no sense of belonging, and that goes for anything you do in life.
His perception of what a relationship is, was skewed, and while I would agree that his mind tends to some mental illness, as well as a more radical belief system (not as uncommon as you'd think, just most people don't get pushed to the edge like him) although I would attribute the majority of the motivate to do this being due to his upbringing, and just being unable to fulfill the biggest goal of his life when giving his fullest effort.
On May 26 2014 03:17 LilClinkin wrote: Currently skimming as quickly as I can through this guy's manifesto...
From what I can gather, this sort of thing occurs as the perfect storm of factors...an individual with a poor temperament and extremely narcissistic personality is born into a privileged family (which breaks up at young age) whose parents aren't ever really available to him on an emotional level, combined with a bad teenage experience at school of being perpetually bullied.
I went through similar experiences to him during my 3rd-8th years at school; being the shortest, weakest kid, getting bullied, being shy, having difficulty reconciling my emotions towards females due to poor self-esteem, using video-games as a coping mechanism etc. I can empathise with him...to a certain point.
Exactly what I see it is as well. Events like these should be used as learning mechanisms when possible, discussing how "mentally fucked up" a dead person is, doesn't change much going into the present and the future.
By the sounds of it he looked for advice all over the place but it doesn't seem like he ever grasped on and changed his behaviour or outlook and that cycle perpetuated until this.
I'm no big adherent or follower of it, but the better side off the PUA community, they would actually trample out this sort of entitlement mindset (or try).
It's been pissing me off all day reading articles that repeat that he frequented such sites without doing any follow up or actual Godamn research and playing cod psychologist. Obviously in the big scheme of things that matters not a jot, but lazy fucking 'journalism' across the board, argh.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
But he wasn't just sad. He hated seeing couples that were happy, holding hands, kissing etc. Everyone can relate to longing for someone to love them, yea, but to target people that are happy simply because you aren't is disgusting. He put such a huge emphasis on having a relationship because he didn't have a girl, but man if he did get a girl he'd realize quickly it's not all heavenly as he believes it is. Girls aren't all golden angels descending upon us to shower us in blowjobs, steak and endless love. This guy wanted endless, unquestionable love - he didn't want just a girlfriend. He wasn't looking to hook up with girls, he wanted to find a soul mate. And that shit just doesn't fall out of the sky. He has such a misconstrued idea as to what a relationship is, he believed it was more important than anything else in the world - even his and other's lives.
I'm going to say this stems from issues a lot deeper than simply not having a girlfriend or interactions. I wonder how his relationship with his mom was.
If he had found a gf there would have been something else that he could not succeed in and that would have made him mad. Maybe this gf would have ended up dead then.
I don't think there's enough evidence to make a statement like that.
If he found a girlfriend a week before he did the mass murder, then he's probably too far gone, and his hatred towards humanity could have easily been displayed throughout other avenues.
However if he found a girlfriend and was more accepted by girls at the age of 16-18, he might've been completely different. The main things that it comes down to, and the information we don't have, is exactly how he acted around girls. Maybe he just tried to brag, be extremely narcissistic, and generally unpleasant to be around, and in that case, it's more of a mental issue and behaviour disorder. Just as easily it could have been unfair treatment though... Being discriminated for being half-Asian, for being small and weak, and other factors may not know which were present.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail.
I'm pretty sure this is an example of "mental illness > can't get a girl", not "can't get a girl > mental illness". The fact that he himself couldn't recognize this puts him squarely into the "psychotic" section.
It's usually not as black and white as you make it out to be with those two options.
And "mental illness" and "radical belief & morals" are not interchangeable phrases. You might be right, but I would say it's more of a feedback loop between: upbringing(bullying, divorce, etc), behavioural disorders, beliefs, inability to get love.
On May 26 2014 03:03 FiWiFaKi wrote: I decided to watch these videos he posted, and honestly, everyone is calling him an idiot, an asshole, etc.
Truthfully, I don't see him that insane. His videos were over the top, and it almost felt like he was acting to behave like this, but at the end of the day, if I have to be the first to admit it, I don't think he's some hideous looking guy. He's well spoken, has class, probably pretty smart, looks alright, has money, and has been trying to get some girls to like him his whole life with no avail. I think there are many people in the world like him, feeling like they're one level up in every aspect of life on other guys, yet they can't get anyone, loneliness gets to everyone. I myself go through these cycles where I dislike people because I want to do my own thing, but after a few weeks/months, I go back to people because I get lonely, rinse and repeat.
It must feel awful really doing everything you can, and just really getting no results. I'm sure others have argued with you on the internet, and a majority of the people disagreed with you, but you were so sure you were right, that you just in your head called them idiots and walked away. I think that's what happened here, however there is no escape from this desire, and in the end you live your life in misery. People like to point out exactly how he was acting differently from the ideals, however nobody lives by the ideals. If any person on teamliquid made 20 personal videos, and we had a reason to want to pick apart that individual for how he behaves and for what he believes, I'm sure we'd be able to.
My Grade 10 year, I think most guys really wanted to get laid, and I would say that was a big goal of mine too, just the way the teenage brain thinks I guess. And if you go through highschool without sex if it's something you're really searching for, I'd imagine you'd feel like an inferior person, when others have the goal of having sex, and they manage it, but you don't. And then when you go to college/university, and you finish half your degree, you really start to worry when you still haven't been involved in any sexual activity. Everyone tells you that in university everyone is really horny, and everyone has sex with everyone, and it wouldn't be an illogical thought to think that if you can't win a girls heart in university, you will dearly struggle for the rest of your life.
At the end of the day, I am not defending what he did, his behaviour was very narcissistic, and well had many similarities to people I personally know who've struggled with such things. Hopefully this is something that is learned from, to try and structure society where these motivates for people to do such actions aren't so exemplified. I haven't done any research on the frequency of these incidents, and therefore I'm unsure whether this was just an isolated incident, or these are common throughout the western world.
But he wasn't just sad. He hated seeing couples that were happy, holding hands, kissing etc. Everyone can relate to longing for someone to love them, yea, but to target people that are happy simply because you aren't is disgusting. He put such a huge emphasis on having a relationship because he didn't have a girl, but man if he did get a girl he'd realize quickly it's not all heavenly as he believes it is. Girls aren't all golden angels descending upon us to shower us in blowjobs, steak and endless love. This guy wanted endless, unquestionable love - he didn't want just a girlfriend. He wasn't looking to hook up with girls, he wanted to find a soul mate. And that shit just doesn't fall out of the sky. He has such a misconstrued idea as to what a relationship is, he believed it was more important than anything else in the world - even his and other's lives.
I'm going to say this stems from issues a lot deeper than simply not having a girlfriend or interactions. I wonder how his relationship with his mom was.
Well I agree with you that a relationship to most people isn't as heavenly as it may seem, but we always think of it as something better than it really is before we have one, don't we?
How would you know how shitty a relationship is before you've had one? In my opinion, a good relationship is one of the better things in life, and you really have no way to know [how good or how bad it is] before you experience it. Don't tell me you've never been jealous of some friend who told you a sex story or just had sex before you did. I think it's natural for a guys mind to lust that.
He might've wanted endless love, but odds are, if he found a relationship, he would've understood it better, he'd see how his body responded to this relationship, he could put himself into the shoes of those who have a relationship, instead of alienating them to animals that propagate this cruel world. I don't know, but if you face endless rejection, and all your efforts fail, you have no sense of belonging, and that goes for anything you do in life.
His perception of what a relationship is, was skewed, and while I would agree that his mind tends to some mental illness, as well as a more radical belief system (not as uncommon as you'd think, just most people don't get pushed to the edge like him) although I would attribute the majority of the motivate to do this being due to his upbringing, and just being unable to fulfill the biggest goal of his life when giving his fullest effort.
This is all hindsight, of course.
It's hard building a great relationship with someone, but if/when you can I agree that it is indeed one of the greater things in life. But to long for such an intense relationship when he's never been intimate with someone in the first place is ridiculous. He glorified relationships so much simply because he didn't understand them. He didn't think of the work or commitment or sacrifices that go into building relationships - he only sought the unconditional love. On top of all this, he believed girls were simply to be obtained. Maybe if he had one mediocre relationship he would have understood more. I agree with you when you say a girlfriend this year or last wouldn't have been able to affect him for the better, but rather a girl years and years ago while he was developing as a teenager. And no, I've never personally been jealous from a sex story; although this is subjective. I lost my virginity at a very young age.
Obviously understanding him to any degree is hard without first knowing his upbringing and past. I sure as hell can't, I'm no clinical psychologist.
I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone".
Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-card-romance that's shoved down our throats, recognize that reality is a lot more complicated to most people, and that there's nothing wrong with not being "in love" with someone.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
If anyone is to blame it is our society. No wonder people become insane when our society tells you the only way you will ever be a "worthy" person is when you put your penis in a vag.
A friend just pointed this out on Facebook, and I think it's an excellent point.
"While that's all true and he probably did have some kind of personality disorder, I'm troubled that every time this occurs, people automatically jump to say that he must've been crazy. By describing him as crazy, they are relieving him of some level of responsibility for his actions and stigmatizing mental illness. People are so scared of the idea that more or less sane people can do incredibly evil and ugly things when there are cultural pathologies at work.
"Again, not saying he wasn't disturbed, because he clearly was. I just wish the focus wasn't so much on his mental health and was more on the putrid ideologies of the communities he frequented (PUA, "incel," anti-feminism.) I think people who jump to discuss his mental health first and foremost are inadvertently excusing him somewhat."
On May 26 2014 04:32 Calanthe wrote: A friend just pointed this out on Facebook, and I think it's an excellent point.
"While that's all true and he probably did have some kind of personality disorder, I'm troubled that every time this occurs, people automatically jump to say that he must've been crazy. By describing him as crazy, they are relieving him of some level of responsibility for his actions and stigmatizing mental illness. People are so scared of the idea that more or less sane people can do incredibly evil and ugly things when there are cultural pathologies at work.
"Again, not saying he wasn't disturbed, because he clearly was. I just wish the focus wasn't so much on his mental health and was more on the putrid ideologies of the communities he frequented (PUA, "incel," anti-feminism.) I think people who jump to discuss his mental health first and foremost are inadvertently excusing him somewhat."
I think he's a product of an incredible toxic environment, a 'perfect storm' as one poster mentioned.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
I just think we have a cultural problem when it comes to sex that can be degrading to people's mental health.
He wanted a fairy-tale romance to just happen to him like it happens to people in the movies.
I think we just need to culturally take some of the romance out of sex, and not place romance on such a pedestal, that people don't feel that romance is the end-all-be-all, like you're less of a man if you don't have the one woman in your life.
On May 26 2014 04:32 Calanthe wrote: A friend just pointed this out on Facebook, and I think it's an excellent point.
"While that's all true and he probably did have some kind of personality disorder, I'm troubled that every time this occurs, people automatically jump to say that he must've been crazy. By describing him as crazy, they are relieving him of some level of responsibility for his actions and stigmatizing mental illness. People are so scared of the idea that more or less sane people can do incredibly evil and ugly things when there are cultural pathologies at work.
"Again, not saying he wasn't disturbed, because he clearly was. I just wish the focus wasn't so much on his mental health and was more on the putrid ideologies of the communities he frequented (PUA, "incel," anti-feminism.) I think people who jump to discuss his mental health first and foremost are inadvertently excusing him somewhat."
Yeah, let's take the convenient blame away from insanity and conveniently blame his problems on things we don't like. I mean, I agree that PUA and a lot of anti-feminism could contribute, but come on. This person is an individual, and that's just pushing an agenda. Plus, "incel" is literally involuntary celibacy which is kind of applicable for this guy...
Of course he was mentally not right. Probably had some sort of personality disorder, and his unfortunate life circumstances only exacerbated that. He seriously obsessed over sex and virginity, and never had an experience that could make him change his ways because he himself prevented it without knowing. You're a woman, and this is going to sound harsh, but women probably can't understand this as well as men, since if a woman wants sex it is much easier for her to get it through legal means.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
I just think we have a cultural problem when it comes to sex that can be degrading to people's mental health.
He wanted a fairy-tale romance to just happen to him like it happens to people in the movies.
I think we just need to culturally take some of the romance out of sex, and not place romance on such a pedestal, that people don't feel that romance is the end-all-be-all, like you're less of a man if you don't have the one woman in your life.
Should we change society to prevent a few from becoming psychopaths, or do we rather try and finds these psychopaths and lock them up is the better question. We can't appease to every single person in society. Somewhere you must draw a line (and it's always dynamically changing with society and technology), and the factors that determine where you'd draw this line could be written in about a 10 volume set of books regarding the topic.
You do realize that for the foreseeable future we will always try to promote sex and being a must thing in life. You know why? Because every generations of genes that lives on must have sex and usually a family to live on. People who outcry about sex die, and they don't have family blood to keep their worldviews going.
PUA is being dragged in where there is no need to drag it in. The feminist postings have centred around male 'entitlement', where in PUA circles is it advocated that you're entitled to anything without putting in the hard graft.
By all means criticise it for the many valid reasons that exist, but that's not one of them.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
I just think we have a cultural problem when it comes to sex that can be degrading to people's mental health.
He wanted a fairy-tale romance to just happen to him like it happens to people in the movies.
I think we just need to culturally take some of the romance out of sex, and not place romance on such a pedestal, that people don't feel that romance is the end-all-be-all, like you're less of a man if you don't have the one woman in your life.
Should we change society to prevent a few from becoming psychopaths, or do we rather try and finds these psychopaths and lock them up is the better question. We can't appease to every single person in society. Somewhere you must draw a line (and it's always dynamically changing with society and technology), and the factors that determine where you'd draw this line could be written in about a 10 volume set of books regarding the topic.
You do realize that for the foreseeable future we will always try to promote sex and being a must thing in life. You know why? Because every generations of genes that lives on must have sex and usually a family to live on. People who outcry about sex die, and they don't have family blood to keep their worldviews going.
From what I understood from his point, it was that everything seems to be centered on the idea of sex and how important it is. Would anyone dispute its importance? no, not really but do things like shows, movies etc... have to have a lot of sexual content. Well, that differs from person to person but I would say cutting down on those shouldn't really hurt.
On May 26 2014 02:30 MoonfireSpam wrote: I'm more amazed that people actually bother to read the shit people like this dude write.
It gives insight into the mind of others. When I read this, I can remove my hate for him and read it with an open mind. His manifesto tells a story about him since he was born. It's a psychologist's dream to have this much readily available information such as this. While, I'm only 30 pages through and up to his middle school, it shows each step that went wrong with his life.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
I just think we have a cultural problem when it comes to sex that can be degrading to people's mental health.
He wanted a fairy-tale romance to just happen to him like it happens to people in the movies.
I think we just need to culturally take some of the romance out of sex, and not place romance on such a pedestal, that people don't feel that romance is the end-all-be-all, like you're less of a man if you don't have the one woman in your life.
Should we change society to prevent a few from becoming psychopaths, or do we rather try and finds these psychopaths and lock them up is the better question. We can't appease to every single person in society. Somewhere you must draw a line (and it's always dynamically changing with society and technology), and the factors that determine where you'd draw this line could be written in about a 10 volume set of books regarding the topic.
You do realize that for the foreseeable future we will always try to promote sex and being a must thing in life. You know why? Because every generations of genes that lives on must have sex and usually a family to live on. People who outcry about sex die, and they don't have family blood to keep their worldviews going.
From what I understood from his point, it was that everything seems to be centered on the idea of sex and how important it is. Would anyone dispute its importance? no, not really but do things like shows, movies etc... have to have a lot of sexual content. Well, that differs from person to person but I would say cutting down on those shouldn't really hurt.
But I want to see romantic sexual content in movies and TV shows.
You try and change that, and I will rather watch a different TV show. Capitalism wont allow it. So then there are really only two alternatives:
1) Government involvement in holidays, passing more PDA (public display of affection) laws, bans for extremely romantic and sexual content on TV. Government involvement in general sexual activity, and reduction of sexual freedom.
2) A cultural movement to a less sex oriented culture and acceptance towards many different worldviews.
Now we can see how option #1 is very impractical, government being involved in family holidays doesn't really sit right with people. Making these bans in today's society in unrealistic, and people already feel that nudity laws, sex laws, and all else is very strict. Option two is the multicultural, and more acceptance to beliefs and values movement, which is happening today, but I don't see it ever going to such an extreme level as this. And there is nothing to accelerate this movement to a more sex free world, if anything, rather the opposite due to a decline of religion in the western world, which are the main opponents to sexual freedom.
On May 26 2014 04:18 Leporello wrote: I think a lot of modern society's problems could be to blame here.
Our approach to sex is hypocritical to the extreme. We glorify it and demonize it, promote it and punish it, romanticize it and sleaze it. Sex is probably the best way to drive a person crazy. We need to fully embrace sexuality in our culture, and demand the puritans and self-virtuous keep their Victorian ideals to themselves. If this kid wanted some harmless sex, he should've gotten it. His ideas of romance would be more adapted and more realistic, if he had some intimate knowledge of women. We shouldn't be afraid to simply allow people to explore that aspect of humanity without feeling like they have to earn it through some trial of Social Darwinism. I don't just mean legalizing prostitution (although we certainly should), but getting rid of the social implication that everyone needs to find "that someone". Like, fuck Valentine's Day, for instance. Get rid of the Hallmark-romance that's shoved down our throats, and people wouldn't feel insecure about not being swept-away in-love.
We idolize guns and violence. We idolize individualism, but not society.
This kid was in a populated community, and he was screaming for help. Technically, he received a bit of help, but it wasn't enough. Yeah, we can call him a conceited self-absorbed lunatic, and that's true to a degree. But we're manufacturing a lot of self-absorbed lunatics in this country, and we've no shortage of sophisticated weaponry for them to use. Something is terribly wrong with all this.
@bolded you make it sound like he should just be given something lol. Asides from prostitution, I don't think there are other avenues for that. I do believe that society played a very small role with the focus on relationships and such but removing things like Valentine's Day wouldn't change anything. He had an inherently wrong idea thinking that things should be given to him just because of who he is. That idea had to be changed though a society with less emphasis on sex (movies and shows have quite a bit here) would've definitely helped out and would still help in the long run.
I just think we have a cultural problem when it comes to sex that can be degrading to people's mental health.
He wanted a fairy-tale romance to just happen to him like it happens to people in the movies.
I think we just need to culturally take some of the romance out of sex, and not place romance on such a pedestal, that people don't feel that romance is the end-all-be-all, like you're less of a man if you don't have the one woman in your life.
Should we change society to prevent a few from becoming psychopaths, or do we rather try and finds these psychopaths and lock them up is the better question. We can't appease to every single person in society. Somewhere you must draw a line (and it's always dynamically changing with society and technology), and the factors that determine where you'd draw this line could be written in about a 10 volume set of books regarding the topic.
You do realize that for the foreseeable future we will always try to promote sex and being a must thing in life. You know why? Because every generations of genes that lives on must have sex and usually a family to live on. People who outcry about sex die, and they don't have family blood to keep their worldviews going.
Sex and romance are two different things. I'm not sure who you're responding to with that second paragraph. Nothing wrong with promoting sex -- as I said in my previous post, sex should be more open, less shameful, prostitution legal and without social ridicule, etc.. But we're so far from that point because of all these rather Victorian-leftover ideals that are simply everywhere in our culture -- that monogamy is for proper humans and is the most life-fulfilling thing that exists. We promote romance at the cost of sex, really, because sex on its own is seen as "perverted" next to romance. I think Valentine's Day is awful, but I'd be fine with Human Sexuality Day. Sex is totally worth celebrating.
Every good hero has his soul mate in our culture, is the problem. And every person is a hero in their own eyes. This kid failed to be the hero he thought himself being, but not able to blame himself (even though there shouldn't be any blame or shame necessary) he blamed anything and everything else.
I just hope culture moves further away from classical romance, is my only real point here. I don't think romance is bullshit or anything, but it certainly isn't something that everyone should expect and isn't any sort of criteria for what makes a good man. But the concept of romance was obviously very indoctrinated into this kid, to devastating consequences.
On May 26 2014 04:55 Wombat_NI wrote: PUA is being dragged in where there is no need to drag it in. The feminist postings have centred around male 'entitlement', where in PUA circles is it advocated that you're entitled to anything without putting in the hard graft.
By all means criticise it for the many valid reasons that exist, but that's not one of them.
As someone who used to be very into pua but is not anymore, entitlment is considered an essential mindset to get women who are very physically attractive.
On May 26 2014 04:55 Wombat_NI wrote: PUA is being dragged in where there is no need to drag it in. The feminist postings have centered around male 'entitlement', where in PUA circles is it advocated that you're entitled to anything without putting in the hard graft.
By all means criticize it for the many valid reasons that exist, but that's not one of them.
I'm not quite sure why PUA is dragged into this negatively. PUA is about giving guys more options with women. More ways to win the affection of women instead of putting most of the of emphasis on looks. PUA learn that relationships are not guaranteed, and fault of not getting a women's affection is internal, not external. It's your fault, not the women's. Many PUA would build a skillset such as learn how to dance, play an instrument, sing, etc to casually demonstrate higher value. They would constantly try to improve themselves. What a PUA doesn't do is shoved it in a women's face and "hey! LOVE ME!" which I sense is what went wrong with this guy and his failed attempt at PUA.
This is a horrible thing and I wish I knew of a way to help the families hurt by the shooting but some things said in this thread really disturb me.
Calling him crazy and saying that there was probably nothing to do about it really sucks. I'm pretty sure that there is plenty that could have been done, or not done, to avoid this.
Maybe if we taught our kids to be tolerant, not assholes, we'd avoid events like this. Now I know some people will think "But we teach our kids to be tolerant!", maybe even "We go to church!" or "We help this or that minority in our area!". That's cool, now look at the number of people who protest against same-sex marriage, the number of people that see a terrorist when they meet an arab, the number of people against immigration because "These blacks/mexicans/roms steal our jobs and TVs". There is still some serious work to do on being tolerant.
Maybe if we shamed hypocrites, liars and egoists instead of shaming people's physical attributes, sexual desires, beliefs or whatever, we'd avoid events like this. Same point as above, most people will tell you how they agree with this, but then do not practice it at all on a daily basis.
Maybe if we taught people about finding what makes them happy and pursuing it instead of pretending that all that matters is becoming rich and famous we'd avoid events like this. But that takes a fuckton of work, that takes humility, patience and all sorts of other things most people would rather avoid doing. And that's sad.
I believe there is something seriously wrong with how we educate kids, and that this event was as much the shooter's responsibility as that of what you could call "society".
I don't believe that people are (natural) born killers, and experiments have shown how big of an effect your upbringing can have on you as an person.
If you search for the site he got addicted to - puahate.com - it turns out to be an anti-pickup forum.
Rodger was also allegedly a member of PUAHate.com, a website for men who feel they’ve been tricked by the Pick-Up Artist pyramid scheme, which takes men’s money and promises to teach them how to have sex with women. (And not just any woman, but one who scores at least a 7 on the PUA decimal rating scale of female attractiveness.) PUA Hate is a community devoted to criticizing the Pick-Up Artist movement and “the scams, deception, and misleading marketing techniques used by dating gurus and the seduction community to deceive men and profit from them." It is not, however, interested in putting an end to the PUA community’s objectification of women; it simply complains that the tips and tricks don’t work.
Rodger was also allegedly a member of PUAHate.com, a website for men who feel they’ve been tricked by the Pick-Up Artist pyramid scheme, which takes men’s money and promises to teach them how to have sex with women. (And not just any woman, but one who scores at least a 7 on the PUA decimal rating scale of female attractiveness.) PUA Hate is a community devoted to criticizing the Pick-Up Artist movement and “the scams, deception, and misleading marketing techniques used by dating gurus and the seduction community to deceive men and profit from them." It is not, however, interested in putting an end to the PUA community’s objectification of women; it simply complains that the tips and tricks don’t work.
Basically when it comes to the entire dating scene there are both awesome people who can actually help others in lots of ways but there are also lots of douchecanoes who enjoy the easy money from the gullible. The issue for someone looking into getting better when it comes to his "dating skillset" or his social skillset in general is that it's sometimes hard to differentiate between the two.
Now, the whole "PUAhate" deal comes from the side of people who claim that basically any and everyone involved in the dating scene is out for your money and to scam you (which obviously is just as dumb of a point of view as the opposite). From my understanding from the few people I've interacted with from that community it comes down to "I payed thousands of dollars and I didn't get a magic pill" so let's say it attracts a very... special crowd.
Dragging this into the story however is awkward as usual. Especially in this day and age there are communities for *literally* everything and guess what: 99.999% of them never go on a killing spree. I think it's kind of sick that that doesn't stop anyone from pointing fingers but I guess it helps people who didn't like whatever-we're-pointing-fingers-at anyway.
Again I'm not for/anti PUA but if nothing else it's anti-entitlement so it's why my proverbial jimmies are rustled by the blogosphere speculating and talking nonsense in that regard.
Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
On May 25 2014 07:00 EarthwormJim wrote: When will America change gun policy?
My heart goes out to your community.
Nothing will prevent it.
Gotta love people who don't think.
I feel bad for all the people shot and hope those bastards that did it suffer. So disgusting how some people are.
Do you have any idea what you said? Are you aware of the story? I ask because 'those bastards' doesn't make sense. Also, nobody should suffer maliciously, in any circumstance.
I don't understand what 'Gotta love people who don't think.' means, unless you are referring to your own post, which seems strange...
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
Please do expand Kwark. I do feel there is inequality like mentioned above as well. Being a guy is tough in high school in my opinion.
For girls, like 10% are in the top class, 70% in middle class, and 20% in bottom class.
While for guys, it feels more like 20% top class, 20% middle class, 60% in bottom class.
I know this is a crude way of putting it, but just from my personal high school experience it's about how I saw it when the classes represent different social group levels.
I think university changes a lot of it, but I think that transition to university from grade 8 - grade 12 is a very complex time for teenagers. This is where most people make it or break it, and it's especially important to focus on education for this age group.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
Once again I'm getting this impression that you're reading particular lines and ignoring the rest. I believe that society owes men sex. When I say that I don't mean men should be handed sexual gratification on a plate as a reward for being born male. If you rather, ignore the word owe if it offends you. Try; it is in society's interest that young men are getting laid. It's easy to look at incidents like this, where the killer is a bitter woman hater and claim that the problem is that he hates women. That's not a cause, it's a symptom. Why does he hate women? Romantic rejection is a common feature in incidents of this kind (http://www15.uta.fi/arkisto/aktk/projects/sta/Leary_Kowalski_Smith_Phillips_2003_Teasing-Rejection-and-Violence.pdf). Men like the killer aren't provided with the tools to talk to women properly, let alone lay them. Can it be denied that a lack of sex is a real problem for a man of such an age? If you think I'm saying that girls should fuck guys like him to make sure they don't go crazy and shoot people, obviously not. But to my mind it can't be ignored that as society is, there will always be a worringly large proportion of young men like this who haven't been provided with the tools to talk to women let alone lay them, and put women on such high pedestals that when they see said women following their natural inclination to bone 'obnoxious assholes'* become angry, bitter, and jealous.
We don't need more sex, society is already sexualised as fuck.
What we do need (and IMO unrelated to this case) is an end to the bizarre juxtaposition of an incredibly sexualised culture, but a relative lack of openness to actively discussing sex in deeper terms.
Always we will have people that struggle to fit in with society's norm, it is only when it is combined with mental health issues when problems like this occur. Elliot could have been dissatisfied with any number of things in society, but in his individual case he was fixated on sex. Most people that get bullied, don't get laid, have shitty jobs etc. don't feel the need to go on killing spree's, it is when it is combined with delusions and obsessions when these things become serious problems.
I agree that society is a little messed up with how sex works and how it is in your face throughout the media and increasingly on TV shows- but really that is not the issue in this case. Elliot was not in touch with reality- and this was by far the main issue.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with , in a sense, "too much" market-value than guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
You're stating your ignorance... have you never heard of a fucking gym?
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
You're stating your ignorance... have you never heard of a fucking gym?
So you are seriously comparing going to the gym and working out maybe several times a week to simply putting on some makeup? Are you actually serious?
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
You're stating your ignorance... have you never heard of a fucking gym?
So you are seriously comparing going to the gym and working out maybe several times a week to simply putting on some makeup? Are you actually serious?
Yes? As a theatre major with a required stage makeup class, I can tell you that those two are comparable in terms of return on time invested. You're belittling a very nuanced art to the point of implying that women go to the store, buy a box simple labelled 'makeup', open the box and rub their face over the contents to magically look pretty.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
On May 26 2014 07:23 The KY wrote: Not a week ago I was talking to a young lady friend of mine, she was making fun of a guy we know who is terrible with women and is a virgin in his early twenties. I was stern with her, saying that a lack of sex is enough to drive men mad. I asked her, the mass shootings that are perpetrated by young men on what seems like a bi-annual basis, do you think the vast majority of these young men were getting laid? Do you think they were virgins? Do you, if you'll forgive me being crass, think they would be killing their coworkers and schoolfriends if they had any chance of getting a girl to suck their dick?
This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway. But here is a fact (or so it seems to me); never in human history have young men been so bombarded with sexuality and yet have so many of them had so little access to sex itself. In my opinion it's time to address the horrendously unlevel playing field that is the heterosexual dating scene. 99 out of 100 women spend their youths riding a cock carousel, because they can. They seek men not who are providers but who can excite and titillate them. A women doesn't even necessarily have to be attractive to be incredibly, almost ludicrously selective. They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them. Boys who have been taught to be subservient to women, who are taught by the media they consume that by being a provider they will be rewarded with female affection. Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled. The traditional idea is that everyone has a rough idea of where their level is on the scale of sexual attractiveness and you match up accordingly. But this is no longer the case because it is women who feel too entitled. Men are so desperate for their attention that even the ugliest, dullest girl could be sure of getting laid week in, week out if they really desired it. And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter. They agonise over it. Their pride shrivels. They become bitter and angry, they despise men they see as obnoxious assholes who exploit women, while the women they put on such high pedestals disappoint them again and again until they despise them as well. But ah, the future is bright for our young friends. In their mid thirties they will be the guy who women settle down with, after their looks have faded and they've taken the dicks of a couple dozen more successful men.
Meanwhile anyone who decries these consequences of unfettered feminism is vilified in ways that can only be described as shockingly venomous. Anyone who proclaims to believe that retaining a semblance of traditional masculinity in society is mocked as a virgin loser or a misogynist or a creep.
I apologise for getting passionate but I am passionate about this. I don't dislike women, I am very fond of many of them in fact, but the fact that modern western society is so biased towards women in these situations is impossible for me to ignore. Men are left to fall through the cracks and live a sexless nightmare so that the sexual revolution can continue unabated. Such men are the butt of jokes, while feminists obsess over rape, men are kicked out of universities without trial for even being accused of sexual assault, women go on pointless, self satisfied marches like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night, and decry #EverydaySexism every time someone assumes they won't be any good at fixing cars.
Some sexual revolution. Some equality.
EDIT: And of course, a lot of the responses to this horrific killing spree claim that misogyny is the cause. Ha!
this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
Except 1: that costs a lot more money than makeup, and 2: women also spend money on nice clothes and accessories.
On May 26 2014 07:35 KwarK wrote: [quote] this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
On May 26 2014 07:35 KwarK wrote: [quote] this is not only laughably wrong but is essentially the mindset the killer had
My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
I can see why you think I haven't clarified anything when you take statements from my first post and ignore all the others that came after it, in which I attempted to clarify.
If you genuinely believe that my stance is 'yo all you women need to go and start fucking lonely guys before they pull out uzis on your asses', then you're a fucking idiot. There it is. I can think of no other way of putting that. My actual stance is that we should be asking the question 'where did society go wrong that such large groups of men do not have access to sex, and how do we remedy this'. Soooo rapey, I know.
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
On May 26 2014 07:43 KwarK wrote: [quote] You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
Admittedly I used some overly emotional language, but in my second post I recognized that and attempted to elaborate more calmly on my position.
On May 26 2014 07:40 The KY wrote: [quote] My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
On May 26 2014 07:43 KwarK wrote: [quote] You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
The real problem here is make-up. Make-up can turn even ugly women/girls into "beauties" so there will always be a higher percentage of "hot girls" with in a sense "too much" market-value compared to guys.
In other words a guy we would rate 5/10 based on looks will never be able to find a girl that is naturally a 5/10 because make-up turns that girl into a 7/10 or 8/10 (out of his league).
Girls have easy tools to artificially increase their market value, men really do not (outside of getting rich or something extreme like that). So assuming equal distribution of "good looks" across both sexes, it will never be "fair game" unless we were to ban make-up.
That's just how it is.
Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
I don't believe it is. My only point is this - 20% of the men are having 80% of the sex. Hook up culture is rampant. Long term relationships are either a temporary state of affairs or a joke for many people. It's a problem, and it's a problem for men exclusively. And there are consequences to problems.
I take some offense at the implication that I share a murderers stance; but perhaps in my anger at the situation I have mistakenly given the wrong impression. I do not share the killers judgemental attitude. When I say that women seek out the highest status men and fuck them because they can, I say it while understanding entirely that I would do the same thing. I don't believe women owe all men sex. I believe that society owes men sex to properly function, and society as it currently exists doesn't provide this for a large number of young men.
You believe men are owed sex...
wow
No.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
He actually has clarified it.
He says "men are entitled to sex" and then continues to compare it to regular social interaction. Since, following your analogy, that also involves another human being to do something with you (over which you have zero control) you can't be "entitled" to social interaction either which I completely agree with.
He seems to call it "entitled" (which is utter bullshit) when he means "It's harder for man to get laid than for a woman and I think that sucks and is super unfair". Which, following his argument, explains how women are "to blame on a collective scale". It's kind of like complaining that redheads should pay for your sunblocker because they drive the prices up on average.
Equality means you have the right to buy sunblocker at the same price as anyone else, it means you are allowed to have social interactions like everyone else, it means you're allowed to have sex like anyone else. It does not mean that society as a collective has to guarantee that you have those things available whenever you want them right here right now. Is there some kind of imbalance? Probably, I highly doubt every single person has the same amount of social interaction or sex as the other. But looking at that imbalance and and saying "Look, there's an imbalance we need to make it 50:50 because otherwise it's not equal!" is a pretty shitty conclusion.
He is saying it's unhealthy for a society where many men don't get to have sex, even though they are as attractive and everything else as women of equal caliber.
Men are not entitled to sex, but at the same time, the culture of women should not be slots, and men should fuck everything that moves hurts both sides because they have different interests.
So as a society, we should put emphasis on sex being a natural thing so more women partake, or convince guys sex is not important, and not worry about it, because currently there is a big struggle between young adult males and females about this issue.
I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
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. It's quite the tragedy really; despite that people knew things weren't going well, it wasn't prevented. I hope this doesnt happen again and that people will find a way to either help these people, or directly prevent them from doing stuff like this.
On May 26 2014 08:22 KwarK wrote: [quote] Yeah.... no. Even if we accept your assumptions that the amount of sex a woman can have is based entirely on her looks and that the amount of sex a man can have is based entirely upon his wallet then a man can still dress as if he doesn't earn minimum wage, just a woman can put on makeup.
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Nobody owes anyone sex. Every person, irregardless of what's in their pants, is the final arbiter of what's happening with their body, and with whom they're wanting to share it with.
That said, sexual deprivation being unhealthy for peoples' mental state is no secret, and should be avoided if we want to improve overall happiness and avoid shit like this. What would be the way forward, is political and social reform. Political, in legalizing prostutition (where currently illegal) and adding a security, social and health network around prostitutes to avoid exploitation and sexual slavery. Social reform, to remove taboos around sex, to remove shaming of sexual habits and frequency of partners, and remove stigma associated with prostitution on both the buying and selling end.
My point here, basically, is to make sex more available, and to remove the stigma association with out-of-relationship sex. Of course, I expect the political (legal) part of prostitution legalization and control being very unwieldy for society / governments, and the social part to be fiercely resisted by religious and conservative groups, so while we do have the tools to theoretically limit these kinds of events, chances are money and tradition will prevent change.
On May 26 2014 08:11 KwarK wrote: [quote] I agree that sex is a natural thing and the obsession that is put on sex as a way of validating masculine identity is very unhealthy but to turn around and say, as KY did, that "society owes men sex" is insane. Sex is an activity that requires another individual, to be owed it is to have an obligation on the body of someone else, it's a rapey mentality. I've gone a while without getting laid before and at no point did I go into some crazy identity crisis nor start hating women.
Gender relations in society are fucked up and the media does a shitty job of promoting healthy attitudes because sex is big money and we'd all much rather buy into some ideal but men are not exclusively victims of that and the poster I was responding to completely undermined himself by attacking feminism, the movement that has done the most to fight fucked up societal views on sex. Women are predominantly the victims of sexual violence and the entitlement of men is a huge part of why that is, coming into the topic saying "well the guy had a point because men are owed sex and women are letting society down by not providing men with enough, men are owed sex" is fucked up.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
And yet I said almost none of that. I didn't say he had a point, and I didn't say women are letting society down by not sleeping with men like this. I merely said that the fact they exist and will continue to exist is a serious problem, and more importantly it's a problem that is new to our age.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
Not what I said. My point is that a man cannot put on make-up and artificially increase his market value, a woman however can and in most cases does exactly that. You have to realize that women have it many times easier to make themselves look more attractive than men. That's just how it works and is precisely why 20% of men have 80% of the sex.
I mean consider this, if a man publicly wears alot of make up there is a good chance they will be ridiculed, if a woman does exactly the same there is a good chance they will be idolized as a sex symbol and thought to be really attractive.
It's not a fair game, never was, never will be.
No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You opened with "women aren't to blame... at least not individually". No shit women aren't to blame for some man shooting a bunch of people but for some reason you seem to think they might be collectively to blame? Because they didn't collectively make arrangements to ensure men like the killer got laid? Maybe they should have all drawn straws?
Could you please elaborate on what you meant by "at least not invidually" here so I can work out exactly why you think women might collectively be responsible for his actions.
You then move on to "Perhaps some will say that such men feel too entitled. Well they are entitled." Well that's about a 6 on the Shauni scale already. You don't want to be on the Shauni scale. So, you think men are entitled to sex, the corollary being that you think women are obligated to give men sex.
Clearly you have some issues with women, take it up with a therapist, in the mean time try not to shoot anyone. k thx
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post
You're misunderstanding me, even though I have made efforts to clarify. When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility. Forgive me but I'm quite certain I've gone over this more than once now. I think men are entitled to sex, yes. Sex is a part of life, isn't it? Like social interactions, it's a pretty essential part of a healthy human life. Particularly for young men. The corollary is not that women are obligated to give men sex. But it is something that men should be getting, it is simply some men's misfortune to be born into a time that doesn't provide them with the tools to get it, and instead they end up sitting idly by in seething jealousy as the women they see as practically angelic jump from one more attractive, confident man to the next.
I can assure you I have no issues with women, but I worry very much about the men that do, but rather than simply dismissing them as hateful misogynists I just wonder if there is a cause for their issues. But hey feel free to make assumptions on my character and indeed mental health. 'k thx'
Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post
Hm.
you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it.
On May 26 2014 08:46 KwarK wrote: [quote] Okay, you seem to think this is a debate. It's not really, it's an intervention. You really need to understand this before you rape anyone. You are not entitled to sex, not from anyone. Women don't owe you sex. If you're not getting enough sex then that's not an issue with women, that's an issue with you. Your beliefs about women are frankly dangerous and the fact that you seem to not know this is even more shocking. Seek help.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post
Hm.
you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it.
'At least not individually.'
Next post 'When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility.'
Man it's so hard to type this when I'm actively repressing the urge to go rape someone because they owe me it, amirite.
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them".
well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic of young men mass-killing people because they don't get enough sex anytime in the near future. Not withstanding of course that I still think there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them".
well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them".
well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc.. in human history... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women.
The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything.
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them".
well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women.
The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything.
I agree but I do believe that the two stats are linked.
On May 26 2014 08:32 KwarK wrote: [quote] No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
I think I'm done being polite because your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. How many times must I explain that I don't think women owe men sex before you actually believe it? I'm saying that if there is a society where large portions of men do not have access to sex then it is a problem. Is this difficult to understand? Do I need to put my reading glasses on just to make sure I'm not accidentally typing 'men don't get enough sex so women should fuck those men because those men deserve it and should take what they deserve'?
If it's worth anything to you, I'm not speaking from experience here. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't of interest to me.
"men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post
Hm.
you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it.
'At least not individually.'
Next post 'When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility.'
Man it's so hard to type this when I'm actively repressing the urge to go rape someone because they owe me it, amirite.
"They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them."
"And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter."
so, from what i'm reading, your premise is that because women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want, they are creating victims of men. How are you not blaming women here exactly? You're also completely ignoring the social stigmatization of 'sluts' in our culture, and the sexual value of purity and chastity.
but, when you have to justify something by saying "I don't dislike women", it usually means you're saying something sexist.
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
Depends on what you mean by "objectifying them".
well, in this context, i'd say i mean objectifying means making the assumption that men are owed sex because otherwise they'd kill people.
Yeah, I certainly agree that is a really questionable line of reasoning given that the only real example I can think of, of a man actually killing people because they thought women were owing them sex is this particular one.
I'm pretty confident in believing that we are at no risk of seeing a massive epidemic men mass-killing people anytime in the near future because they don't get enough sex. Not withstanding of course that I still think that there is a problem in 20% of men having 80% of the sex. Our society just takes expectations of both sexes to an unreasonable extreme unfortunately.
And yet all but one of the mass murders in the U.S. over the last 30 years has been committed by men. And a study that looked at 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 found that romantic rejection was a common feature in most gun-related incidents.
But isn't that part of male biology and totally outside of society's control? I mean men, believe it or not, were responsible for most killings, wars, etc... because men are naturally more aggressive and prone to violence than women.
The reasons can be anything, sex, power, religious bigotry... anything.
I agree but I do believe that the two stats are linked.
Yeah, maybe. But then the problem is that there really isn't much we as a society can do about it. Because men have always found reasons to kill other people, sex is just one of many and I think it's practically impossible to satisfy all men in a way to make them not commit these crimes because there is such a huge variety of possible reasons that could cause them to go "insane".
I mean I agree with you to the extent that society puts unrealistic expectations on men just in the same way it puts unrealistic expectations on women and I think we both agree that this is a more severe problem for men because they are naturally more aggressive than women, so in this particular case our "ressources" are better spent helping men because they are more likely to pose a real threat to other people under the wrong circumstances than women are.
I don't know if this is what you were getting at, but that's at least my take on things.
On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex:
For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures.
But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
On May 26 2014 08:32 KwarK wrote: [quote] No, a man can't wear makeup. Instead he puts on a nice shirt, drives a car he can't afford and puts on a fancy watch. Same shit.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
On May 26 2014 09:03 KwarK wrote: [quote] "men are entitled to sex" "I believe that society owes men sex"
So, we've established that men are entitled to sex and that society owes it to them. Who will be paying this debt? Presumably women, unless all the sexually deprived guys fuck each other which honestly wouldn't be a bad idea. But you believe that women should be meeting this obligation, or else face the consequences like this shooting which you believe are inevitable if they don't. A point you made when you wrote "This isn't to say that women are to blame. Not individually anyway.", that they collectively caused this to happen by failing to provide the sex quota. You seem to think that unless women give sex out more freely and evenly then they'll get shot, something they should have known.
What you're experiencing here is the words that you wrote. Yes, they're idiotic. Yes, they're incredibly sexist. Yes, they're really quite rapey. They're still your words. You haven't clarified shit.
well he's trying pretty hard to back-track out of his first post
problem is, that's a deep hole to climb out of....
I'm hoping it's simply a phrasing issue and instead of repeatedly saying "men are entitled to sex" that what was intended was "men feel entitled to sex" that one word makes a difference and more accurately fits the point that societal pressure on young men to be sexually active and promiscuous is the problem, not that women aren't giving us sex and therefore are the root cause.
but... men feeling entitled to sex is entirely caused by narcissistic and entitled men... how is that anyone else's fault?
edit: it's that sort of rapey feeling that kwark was pointing out. It's women's fault that we're objectifying them, they deserve it... right?
At no point did I claim that women were at fault in any way. I think men feel/are entitled to sex because going without it entirely is not normal for a human being. It just isn't. If you'd rather, think of it as men need sex rather than are entitled to.
yes you did, it's been pointed out to you like 5 times now
'This isn't to say that women are to blame.' - Me, in my first post
Hm.
you left part of that quote out. Maybe try finishing it.
'At least not individually.'
Next post 'When I say 'not individually', I mean to say that it is society, not women, that must bear responsibility.'
Man it's so hard to type this when I'm actively repressing the urge to go rape someone because they owe me it, amirite.
"They will jump into bed with whatever muscle bound ball of charisma they care to, safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences and little judgement because they will always have an uncountable numbers of sadsack boys orbiting them."
"And so, in youth, women fuck an increasingly small number of men, while a sexual underclass is created, and it is populated entirely by men. And for men, lack of sex is no laughing matter."
so, from what i'm reading, your premise is that because women are allowed to have sex with whomever they want, they are creating victims of men. How are you not blaming women here exactly? You're also completely ignoring the social stigmatization of 'sluts' in our culture, and the sexual value of purity and chastity.
And yet in the following post I made it clear that I don't blame women for such behavior, and would do exactly the same in their shoes. My premise is that there is a clear problem and we as a society need to look at it's causes and solutions. What those are I won't venture to say, not at the moment anyway. Social stigmatization of sluts does still exist but I'd it is increasingly less prevalent, with modern day feminism campaigning vigorously to end slut-shaming. As for the value of purity and chastity...haha, well anything so very rare is indeed valuable.
but, when you have to justify something by saying "I don't dislike women", it usually means you're saying something sexist.
Does it? How convenient. Perhaps it means I'm saying something potentially contentious that I know could be misconstrued.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
Yeah, this is on the money. I worry far less about what my son might go through than I do about my daughter coping with all of the bullshit societal pressures that are piled on young women.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex:
For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
I don't understand, so what you're saying is 20% of the male population has sex with 80% of the female population? How is that any different to what I'm suggesting?
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures.
But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
Are you dense? So you want me to substantiate my argument of women having it easier (comparatively) than men in the "dating-game" without being able to actually compare women and men?
I will admit that is actually an impossible task. I cannot make a relative argument without taking into account the relative differences between the two groups im comparing.
No it's not. Most men cannot afford "nice clothing", a nice car and a fancy watch. Makeup on the other hand is comparatively extremely cheap.
I mean all your post does is it tacitly admits how much more effort it takes for a man to get laid than it takes for a woman. That's EXACTLY what I mean when I say that it's not a fair game, it never was and it never will be.
I'm not complaining about it, just stating the obvious.
My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
When have I ever denied societal or inherent biological differences between men and women? I just don't think it's quite as simple as "men evolved to fuck mud". I'm sorry I just don't buy that.
On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex:
For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
I don't understand, so what you're saying is 20% of the male population has sex with 80% of the female population? How is that any different to what I'm suggesting?
On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote: [quote] I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures.
But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
Are you dense? So you want me to substantiate my argument of women having it easier (comparatively) than men in the "dating-game" without being able to actually compare women and men?
I will admit that is actually an impossible task. I cannot make a relative argument without taking into account the relative differences between the two groups im comparing.
On May 26 2014 08:44 KwarK wrote: [quote] My wife spends more on makeup than I do on clothes. You have no idea how much effort women go to in order to try and achieve a physical standard set by photoshop. Men get away with looking like shit in comparison.
But you're still completely missing the point. Yes people try to make themselves appear better than they are. If I'm going out I might save a joke to appear funnier or think of something to say ahead of time to appear smarter but at no point during the saying of the joke have I fundamentally altered the gender balance of society. Makeup is no different.
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
When have I ever denied societal or inherent biological differences between men and women? I just don't think it's quite as simple as "men evolved to fuck mud". I'm sorry I just don't buy that.
I'm not asking you to substantiate anything. I'm just pointing out that your comparison of male and female dating by looking at make up is hopelessly flawed.
It is also rich that you call me dense but in the very next paragraph admit that what you are trying to achieve is impossible.
I think a big problem with your anlaysis is this: you are not comparing like to like. You're just making broad generalisations about the genders. What you should be doing is comparing attractice people with attractive people, and non-attractive people with non-attractivepeoplep. So, if you are an attractive girl you should have no problems with sex. If you are an attrative guy, you should have no problems with sex. If you're not attractive (guy or girl), you compensate with make up, or an expensive watch. Guys have the further option of being witty or smart (girls can kind of do that, but within weird limits set by society. Too smart and you'll scare him off). If you're ugly, well you're probably out of luck either way - though personally I'd say that a fat rich man could be attractive to some still, but a fat rich women is probably going to be lonely.
Of course, if you're not attractive and you're only looking at attractive girls, it would seem like woah they get all the sex they want! But that's just a myopic view because you aren't looking at all girls, just the very attractive ones. Just think - do you honestly say that it's super easy for a fat chick to have sex?
Consider the above, and rethink your idea that there's this huge discrepency in the dating scene where men are unfairly prejudiced.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
You do realise that 20/80 thing is do with sexual partners not quantity of sex:
For example High School sweethearts only ever sleep with each other, get married and live together till they die, but have sex everyday, that man fits into the 20% according to the way the stats are arranged.
I don't understand, so what you're saying is 20% of the male population has sex with 80% of the female population? How is that any different to what I'm suggesting?
On May 26 2014 09:55 levelping wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:48 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:46 levelping wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote: [quote]
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
This kind of "lol make up easy win" sentiment shows you don't really have any idea what women go through to live up to unrealistic standards of beauty. It isn't just make up man. Girls have to put up with a society telling them to be tall but not too tall, have nice breasts, be thin, be smart but not too smart, be fair skinned...
If you really think all that get solves by some lipstick and us poor poor men have to make do with our wits...
Also make up is expensive (the stuff really adds up) and takes time to so well.
And you don't think the same societal pressures aren't equally put on men? Then why is it that 20% of men have 80% of the sex? Doesn't make any sense at all.
What has men facing pressures got to do with make up? Let's not shift the goal posts. Your claim is that make up is an easy tool for women to be attractive but I just told you that make up is not easy, cheap, and in any event is just a small part of society's expectations of female beauty. I am not sure why you want to talk about men's social pressures.
But since you want to. What about them? They are different from those of women's so it's obviously a fools errand to try and compare makeup and gym.
Are you dense? So you want me to substantiate my argument of women having it easier (comparatively) than men in the "dating-game" without being able to actually compare women and men?
I will admit that is actually an impossible task. I cannot make a relative argument without taking into account the relative differences between the two groups im comparing.
On May 26 2014 10:00 xDaunt wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:33 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:25 xDaunt wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:19 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:16 xDaunt wrote:
On May 26 2014 09:05 SlixSC wrote:
On May 26 2014 08:51 KwarK wrote:
On May 26 2014 08:47 SlixSC wrote: [quote]
So you are really resorting to anecdotal evidence now? I'm sorry to say this and even at a risk of sounding rude, why would I care about what your wife does and how much money she spends on things? Are you asserting that your family's spending habits are in any way indicative of the spending habits of the general population? I mean I just don't see where you are going with this.
I'm reasonably sure that my resort to a sample of two is infinitely more evidence than your claims which were not only nonsensical but completley unsubstantiated. Given this I am unsure exactly why you're deciding we should be attacking each other's argument based on evidence, nor why your own stance is somehow enduring this new qualifier. Is it possible you didn't think this through? Perhaps you have your own evidence which you just thought wasn't worth mentioning in your "makeup makes gender relations biased against men" whining.
But you are missing the point, my point is that women have more and comparatively cheaper tools at their disposal to make themselves look more attractive than men do. (and to compare makeup with cars is a little bit silly, a more accurate comparisson would be makeup and facial plastic surgery - those are the two options people have of "changing" their faces, one is exclusive to women and definitely cheaper than the other).
I don't see how you can even dispute this. Makeup is almost exlcusive to women, everything else is equally availaible to both sexes.
This is exactly why so many men cannot find a (sex) partner, because almost every woman is wearing makeup, a tool men simply do not have.
And makeup has very serious implications on how we are perceived by others, it makes our faces look more symmetrical, more healthy, etc... men on the other hand are always stuck with their natural faces (outside of expensive plastic sugery).
And what exactly is makeup if not a simple yet effective tool to trick men into thinking your face is more beautiful than it naturally is (a trick that is not even really available to men outside of expensive plastic surgery, like I already said).
It's not a fair game, I don't understand why you can't see this.
What the fuck is this all about? The relative physical attractiveness between the sexes and their available tools to become physically attractive has nothing to do with how easy it is for one or the other to get laid. It's easier for women to get laid simply because, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." Women are far more discerning. It's simply a matter of differences in biology.
I very much disagree with the argument that "men will fuck mud". If anything it's just a symptome of the problem and not the cause. I mean if that really were true why would any woman even bother wearing makeup in the first place if they could easily get laid without it because "men will fuck mud" anyway?
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now, does it?
They do it to for two reasons. First, they want to maximize their chances of getting the best man available. Second, and perhaps more importantly, women do all sorts of stuff to compete with each other. None of that changes the fact that men generally aren't that discerning. Sure, there are exceptions, but the truth is that pretty much any woman can get laid at will (assuming she doesn't mind who her partner is) if she wants to. You can't say the same about men.
Well duh. And alot of it has to do with makeup being an easy tool for women to make themselves look more attractive than they naturally are, something that is alot more expensive (facial plastic surgery, buying an expensive car) for men. That is the exact reason why so many women can compete to get the best man available, because makeup allows them to get an easy "one-up" on all the equivalent men of similar natural attractiveness.
That is why it's so skewed, you don't realize that you are discussing a symptome, I'm discussing the cause.
You don't even understand the cause because you're failing to acknowledge some basic differences (inherent and societal) between the sexes. And it's not just in this post. It's in pretty much in all of them.
When have I ever denied societal or inherent biological differences between men and women? I just don't think it's quite as simple as "men evolved to fuck mud". I'm sorry I just don't buy that.
I'm not asking you to substantiate anything. I'm just pointing out that your comparison of male and female dating by looking at make up is hopelessly flawed.
It is also rich that you call me dense but in the very next paragraph admit that what you are trying to achieve is impossible.
I think a big problem with your anlaysis is this: you are not comparing like to like. You're just making broad generalisations about the genders. What you should be doing is comparing attractice people with attractive people, and non-attractive people with non-attractivepeoplep. So, if you are an attractive girl you should have no problems with sex. If you are an attrative guy, you should have no problems with sex. If you're not attractive (guy or girl), you compensate with make up, or an expensive watch. Guys have the further option of being witty or smart (girls can kind of do that, but within weird limits set by society. Too smart and you'll scare him off). If you're ugly, well you're probably out of luck either way - though personally I'd say that a fat rich man could be attractive to some still, but a fat rich women is probably going to be lonely.
Of course, if you're not attractive and you're only looking at attractive girls, it would seem like woah they get all the sex they want! But that's just a myopic view because you aren't looking at all girls, just the very attractive ones. Just think - do you honestly say that it's super easy for a fat chick to have sex?
Consider the above, and rethink your idea that there's this huge discrepency in the dating scene where men are unfairly prejudiced.
At this point, I don't know. Because I'm getting very mixed and mutually exclusive responses to my argument. You are saying "women don't have an easier time getting sex than men" whereas xDaunt is saying "men will fuck mud/anything".
And I'm sorry to say this but one of these two statements can be true, none of these two statements can be true but they can't both be true simultaneously. Logic 101.
It is either true that men will fuck mud/anything so even unattractive women have an easier time getting laid(compared to males of similar attractiveness), or men do not fuck anything and woman don't have an easier time getting laid.
And there is of course the third more sensitive option (which is what I'm suggesting) which is that women have an easier time artificially increasing their attractiveness to men, which inherently results in the dating-game being easier for women than men, which would also explain the 80/20 rule. And of course, the great thing about my explanation is that I don't need to speculate about human evolution or perception to the same degree you have to.
I'm literally in the middle on this one, if you actually want to discuss this topic why don't you take it up with the person suggesting a mutually exclusive argument to yours? Because I'm honestly tired of having to fight a battle on two fronts with people who are both trying to undermine my argument whilst ignoring the fact that their arguments are actually mutually exclusive.
This seems to be a clash of ideologies and I seem to have hit a nerve here because I don't subscribe to any particular ideology on the topic of sexism, I have my own opinion and that's all. Sometimes I agree with feminists, sometimes I disagree with them.
How did this topic devolve into discussing men and women having sex and their attractiveness levels? lol. I think we should all agree that comparing men and women isn't easy to do and if one does decide to do it, they should take a lot of factors into account instead of just claiming a couple of things in favour of one or the other.
"Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play."
It's really sad how I, and probably every other woman, can relate to almost every single one of those tweets.
"Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play."
It's really sad how I, and probably every other woman, can relate to almost every single one of those tweets.
lots of foul men out there.. luckily my mother raised me well.. all things considered..
"Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play."
It's really sad how I, and probably every other woman, can relate to almost every single one of those tweets.
lots of foul men out there.. luckily my mother raised me well.. all things considered..
Obviously, but I don't see why the blame seems to always be put on men collectively, yeah there are alot of assholes out there, no doubt. But I would argue that the overwhelming majority of men isn't like that. It's a minority of assholes treating women like shit, but I personally don't have a single male friend who is anything like that, not a single one.
And it really pains me to see myself be put into the same category as these assholes purely based on the fact that I have a penis, as if that tells you anything about the person I am or how I treat other people (not just women).
That's why I often times find myself disagreeing with feminists, it's not that I can't acknowledge the things that happen to them or don't feel bad for them, it's the fact that often times they project their experiences on all men rather than emphasizing the fact that these assholes are individuals and have nothing in common with men who treat women respectfully.
"Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play."
It's really sad how I, and probably every other woman, can relate to almost every single one of those tweets.
lots of foul men out there.. luckily my mother raised me well.. all things considered..
Obviously, but I don't see why the blame seems to always be put on men collectively, yeah there are alot of assholes out there, no doubt. But I would argue that the overwhelming majority of men isn't like that. It's a minority of assholes treating women like shit, but I personally don't have a single male friend who is anything like that, not a single one.
And it really pains me to see myself be put into the same category as these assholes purely based on the fact that I have a penis, as if that tells you anything about the person I am or how I treat other people (not just women).
That's why I often times find myself disagreeing with feminists, it's not that I can't acknowledge the things that happen to them or don't feel bad for them, it's the fact that often times they project their experiences on all men rather than emphasizing the fact that these assholes are individuals and have nothing in common with men who treat women respectfully.
Oh I definitely don't think men, as a whole, should be blamed for those incidents. I've met dozens of wonderful guys for every awful encounter I've had. But there's a reason that women are taught those precautions mentioned in the tweets, and many more. There are a lot of terrible men out there that will take advantage of any vulnerable woman they see. I just think that the emphasis should not be such that we're raising women to follow set of rules on how to avoid getting raped/harassed/etc as much as it should be to emphasize to everyone that people, all people, should be treated with equal respect.
Detractors of "School Days" tell me people aren't such crazy folk as described in the show. I just have to point to this stuff in the news to prove myself. Sex, or the lack thereof, can do some straaaange stuff to the minds of unstable individuals.
On May 26 2014 12:19 Ideal26 wrote: Oh I definitely don't think men, as a whole, should be blamed for those incidents. I've met dozens of wonderful guys for every awful encounter I've had. But there's a reason that women are taught those precautions mentioned in the tweets, and many more. There are a lot of terrible men out there that will take advantage of any vulnerable woman they see. There's enough of them that you have to be careful going anywhere or doing anything... I worked at a grocery store when I was 15 and my boss had to shuffle the schedule so that I never had to go out in the parking lot to retrieve shopping carts after dark because of harassment, as an extremely mild example. Stuff like that shouldn't happen. I just think that the emphasis should not be such that we're raising women to follow set of rules on how to avoid getting raped/harassed/etc as much as it should be to emphasize to everyone that people, all people, should be treated with equal respect.
I don't see how this has anything to do with a guy that killed 5 guys and 2 women with a machine gun?
On May 26 2014 12:19 Ideal26 wrote: Oh I definitely don't think men, as a whole, should be blamed for those incidents. I've met dozens of wonderful guys for every awful encounter I've had. But there's a reason that women are taught those precautions mentioned in the tweets, and many more. There are a lot of terrible men out there that will take advantage of any vulnerable woman they see. There's enough of them that you have to be careful going anywhere or doing anything... I worked at a grocery store when I was 15 and my boss had to shuffle the schedule so that I never had to go out in the parking lot to retrieve shopping carts after dark because of harassment, as an extremely mild example. Stuff like that shouldn't happen. I just think that the emphasis should not be such that we're raising women to follow set of rules on how to avoid getting raped/harassed/etc as much as it should be to emphasize to everyone that people, all people, should be treated with equal respect.
Absolutely, but aren't we doing that already? I don't have any friends or know any people who don't think all people should be treated with equal respect. The real problem is that these bad people just really, really don't care. They don't give a damn about societal norms, equal treatment of others, etc.. all they care about is their personal benefit and I don't see a way to ever change that.
Assholes will unfortunately always exist, there wasn't a single society throughout human history that wasn't plagued by these people, they always existed and from what I can tell they always will.
Of course we can do our best as a society to condemn those people, but my suggestion to you is that those people are so focused on their personal gain that to them society isn't a collective of individual people with emotions, thoughts and feelings, to them society is more likely just the sum total of people they views themselves as superior to (in other words... everyone).
"Funny" (I guess sad is actually more accurate) story, just today I had a really shocking experience when reading some of the youtube comments on this video: Link
That has got to be the broadest most fucked up mouth I've ever seen..
Get some dental work done. Please.
who the fuck is gotye. who the fuck is kimbra. these people had 0.2 seconds of fame and now they're probably flipping burgers at wendys
And so on.. all with dozens of upvotes. There are alot of assholes out there and they aren't just focusing on women, they are assholes towards men aswell, because they don't view other people as emotional human beings, they view other people as objects you can do anything with.
I honestly don't know what motivates people to write hateful comments, I never got it, what is even the point, does it really make other people feel better to know that there is chance they made someone else feel bad?
I really don't understand that part about some people's nature.
But more to the point, this is really what makes me cringe when some feminists (like in the article above) mention miley cyrus in an attempt to convince others how hard women have it in our world. There are actually many things that feminists say that I can agree with, but miley cyrus having some haters/getting censored, whatever is such trivial bullshit.
I'm sorry but Miley Cyrus is both rich and famous, so we are not even focusing on first world problems here, we are focusing on "super famous rich" people problems.... insanity. But the reality is of course that famous people are always under public scrutinity, have haters and aren't all treated equally.
Some celebreties we treat with respect, some others we hate and want to see dead and often times it almost seems arbitrary, but it's definitely not sexist, because for any male famous person with a bunch of haters, there is a female famous person with a bunch of haters. Don't really see how that is divided in any way by sex whatsoever.
"Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play."
It's really sad how I, and probably every other woman, can relate to almost every single one of those tweets.
lots of foul men out there.. luckily my mother raised me well.. all things considered..
Obviously, but I don't see why the blame seems to always be put on men collectively, yeah there are alot of assholes out there, no doubt. But I would argue that the overwhelming majority of men isn't like that. It's a minority of assholes treating women like shit, but I personally don't have a single male friend who is anything like that, not a single one.
And it really pains me to see myself be put into the same category as these assholes purely based on the fact that I have a penis, as if that tells you anything about the person I am or how I treat other people (not just women).
That's why I often times find myself disagreeing with feminists, it's not that I can't acknowledge the things that happen to them or don't feel bad for them, it's the fact that often times they project their experiences on all men rather than emphasizing the fact that these assholes are individuals and have nothing in common with men who treat women respectfully.
Oh I definitely don't think men, as a whole, should be blamed for those incidents. I've met dozens of wonderful guys for every awful encounter I've had. But there's a reason that women are taught those precautions mentioned in the tweets, and many more. There are a lot of terrible men out there that will take advantage of any vulnerable woman they see. I just think that the emphasis should not be such that we're raising women to follow set of rules on how to avoid getting raped/harassed/etc as much as it should be to emphasize to everyone that people, all people, should be treated with equal respect.
*edited to add quote for context/relevance
Well there are also really bad women out there does despicable things to the like of man in manipulation of feelings. They are:
- Three Of 10 Men Are Not Fathers Of Their 'kids (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253421/1-3-US-children-live-father-according-census-number-parent-households-decreases-1-2-million.html). This should be punishable for fraud upon discovery.
- Women destroys marriages and families more often than men (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201311/do-men-or-women-file-divorce-more-often).
- Women tends to get way more money than they deserve in court systems. See the case of Hulk Hogan (http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/11/hulk-hogan-linda-hogan-divorce-settlement/) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2537339/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-Maria-Shriver-stall-divorce-proceedings.html). A fair alimony should be the salary increased by the average salary increase from the people that were in that job sector up to how many years you were married.
So there needs some rework in the system to alleviates all those problems.
Now our resident MRA is here trying to prove that we have inequality by talking about female privilege. On the bright side, we can be relieved that this did not turn out to be a gun control debate.
- highly overprotected childhood - emotionally sensitive nature - intense feelings of shame and inadequacy - lack of resolution due to continued isolation and lack of positive action - build-up of defiance and anger -> 1) gradual resolution over time as life slowly progresses 2) degeneration continues
extremely common IMO. went thru it myself. could have gone either way. was on the verge of death around 5 years ago, leagues better now (still might die lol)
edit: everyone knows women can be bitches, get over it
On May 26 2014 13:30 FFGenerations wrote: - highly overprotected childhood - emotionally sensitive nature - intense feelings of shame and inadequacy - lack of resolution due to continued isolation and lack of positive action - build-up of defiance and anger -> 1) gradual resolution over time as life slowly progresses 2) degeneration continues
extremely common IMO. went thru it myself. could have gone either way. was on the verge of death around 5 years ago, leagues better now (still might die lol)
edit: everyone knows women can be bitches, get over it
Getting over it = no consequences for the bitchy behaviors = more bitchy behaviors = more bitches = a worse civilization.
On May 26 2014 13:30 FFGenerations wrote: - highly overprotected childhood - emotionally sensitive nature - intense feelings of shame and inadequacy - lack of resolution due to continued isolation and lack of positive action - build-up of defiance and anger -> 1) gradual resolution over time as life slowly progresses 2) degeneration continues
extremely common IMO. went thru it myself. could have gone either way. was on the verge of death around 5 years ago, leagues better now (still might die lol)
edit: everyone knows women can be bitches, get over it
Getting over it = no consequences for the bitchy behaviors = more bitchy behaviors = more bitches = a worse civilization.
I really dislike the immediate acceptance of "they are crazy" and moving on. Yes, they are 'crazy' - but there is undoubtedly an underlying psychological and sociological cause. There's a reason not all virgins kill people (intentionally ignorant statement)
There's been a lot of really great points in this thread that actually relate to the killer and the circumstances leading to this tragedy: His dysfunctional family unit, his isolationist social life, having moved a few times, public ridicule at a young age- these are often true of many young rampage killers (Harris and Klebold, for example)
The discussion in this thread is, while hilariously "Derailed", rather intellectual and well written. I'd love to see people actually address this kids life. If you look into it or read his manifesto, this guy had a fucked up childhood, a fucked up family, and a fucked up school experience.
Part of the problem is in the assumption that people need to date "within their level" Levels are purely subjective, and imo it's the blind acceptance of "leagues and levels" that lead to this mentality of sexual entitelement- not the fact that women control the dating pool.
Someone should've told this kid fat chicks need love too.
On May 26 2014 13:30 FFGenerations wrote: - highly overprotected childhood - emotionally sensitive nature - intense feelings of shame and inadequacy - lack of resolution due to continued isolation and lack of positive action - build-up of defiance and anger -> 1) gradual resolution over time as life slowly progresses 2) degeneration continues
extremely common IMO. went thru it myself. could have gone either way. was on the verge of death around 5 years ago, leagues better now (still might die lol)
edit: everyone knows women can be bitches, get over it
Getting over it = no consequences for the bitchy behaviors = more bitchy behaviors = more bitches = a worse civilization.
get over it means dont let it bring you down
Oh in that case, then yeah I agree with ya on this one.
I thought you meant that you don't actively to try correct detriments of a society but simply by allowing them to happen,
If you really think a woman rejecting a man (for whatever reason) is a bitch your level of hypocrisy is actually through the roof.
A woman having sex with lots of different men = bitch A woman rejecting men on a regular basis = bitch
You guys realize that you are not doing yourselves any favours by spouting nonsense like that and it's people like you that are part of the reason feminism still has a place in our society.
On May 26 2014 14:01 SlixSC wrote: If you really think a woman rejecting a man (for whatever reason) is a bitch your level of hypocrisy is actually through the roof.
A woman having sex with lots of different men = bitch A woman rejecting men on a regular basis = bitch
You guys realize that you are not doing yourselves any favours by spouting nonsense like that and it's people like you that are part of the reason feminism still has a place in our society.
Correction:
Exhibit A: A woman having sex with lots of different men while lying to them that they are her one = a bitch A woman rejecting men in a bad manner on a regular basis even though the guy have invested a lot into her = a bitch
Exhibit B: A woman having sex with lots of different men after breaking up with the previous guy in a polite manner and never cheating = a lady. A woman rejecting men politely on a regular basis = a lady.
The society should reward exhibit B's specimen and punish the A.
Part of the problem is in the assumption that people need to date "within their level" Levels are purely subjective, and imo it's the blind acceptance of "leagues and levels" that lead to this mentality of sexual entitelement- not the fact that women control the dating pool.
That's very true. But I know I'm probably repeating myself here, but I still think it is "easier" for women to date men that are "naturally" out of their league than it is for men to date women that are "naturally" out of their league.
And I think the problem here and why so many people reject my "makeup" argument is that we've grown used to the fact that women pretty much all wear make up all the time.
But just look at a few of these pictures and I think you will find that with makeup a "natural 5" can easily become a "7, 8 or even 9" in the eyes of most men.
No matter what clothes you put on, what care you drive, etc.. I firmly believe that a "transformation" like that and a climb up the "attractivness"-ladder in the same way just isn't possible for a man. If you are an average man "a natural 5" even the most fancy clothes and expensive car won't bring you up to an 8 or 9, unless you were to undergo facial plastic surgery or something like that.
But then you look at women and you find that just a little bit of makeup can make a huge difference, it literally allows some women to jump from being a 5 to a 9 or even 10.
edit: Don't get me wrong there are obviously tons of women that are naturally beautiful, so please don't take this to mean that I think all women are "cheating". Zoey Deschanel is imo a really good example of a naturally beautiful woman for example.
Girls want muscles and brawn. Women want stability.
I hate to generalize like that, but every woman I've ever spoken to and every piece of anecdotal evidence my life has provided has corroborated that belief.
Most guys need to recognize that the strongest force for sexual desire is that of the woman's biological clock. Work towards a stable future, the women will find you.
edit; for the record and without any shred of modesty, I've never worked out a day in my life and am dating a girl way out of my league. At a certain point, knowing their children will eat every day and that they'll have a roof over their head beats out the initial "yum" factor of muscles. Work hard in life, get an education, women will follow. The biggest misconception is that you have to get laid in your early 20's for some self worth- and low and behold, we're back at the root of the discussion.
Yes it is easier for women to take shelter under a financially sound men by propping up her looks by using cosmetics and exercise. That's why men have statistically more percentage in the homeless record.
this guy's writing is so good, im gripped up to age 19 and just need to sleep!! hard to believe it ends in mass murder. its like reading some forum blog. or rather, an adrian mole book, what with all the comedy angst. its brilliant . #schooldays
On May 26 2014 14:21 Xiphos wrote: Yes it is easier for women to take shelter under a financially sound men by propping up her looks by using cosmetics and exercise. That's why men have statistically more percentage in the homeless record.
its not the fault of women that men are physically attracted to them. makeup aside, women are going to be hopelessly adored by men nomatter what. who is to blame for that? surely not the woman
On May 26 2014 13:54 Durp wrote: If you look into it or read his manifesto, this guy had a fucked up childhood, a fucked up family, and a fucked up school experience.
You have to take into account that stuff was written by a psychopath that snapped though, probably not exactly an objective write-up.
Fucking so pathetic reading excerpts from this autobio/manifesto. The sexual-resentment of it all is cartoonish. The MRA/PUA communities are really disgusting from what I'm reading. But they can't be blamed for this kid. This kid was off-the-walls bonkers. Narcissism like this can only come from a genuine lunatic.
I think the sexism and sex-in-culture debate is interesting at parts, but more irrelevant than I first thought. This kid was too crazy for any of that to matter. I think the only two issues with what happened are:
1) This kid saw a psychiatrist? What the hell was that guy doing? How could he/she not see this kid was a danger?
2) He bought three guns, legally? This partly ties into my first point, which is that someone needed to red-flag the kid. Not just send some beat cops to his house once -- something more than that. It's not a crime to be "weird", socially isolated, or a virgin. It's not those things that bother me, or should bother others. But this kid was angry, spilling drinks on random girls. And so crazy narcissistic. The shameless and unabashed narcissism has to be a sign that this person is capable of rationalizing violence.
I hope we have another attempt at some tepid gun-control legislation, however meaningless it may be. We need to keep making gun-control an issue in this country. Guns, unlike women, actually are objects. They can and should be controlled. They're idolized and rampantly available, and that's just an awful combination for modern weaponry.
The misogyny surrounding this kid and the internet communities he visited is disgusting. Women aren't objects, it's cliche, but apparently still needs to be said to some people. However, I think this kid could've had an underwear model for a girlfriend, and he would've "gone postal" over something else. The problem with this kid was narcissism, 100% sociopath.
On May 26 2014 14:21 Xiphos wrote: Yes it is easier for women to take shelter under a financially sound men by propping up her looks by using cosmetics and exercise. That's why men have statistically more percentage in the homeless record.
its not the fault of women that men are physically attracted to them. makeup aside, women are going to be hopelessly adored by men nomatter what. who is to blame for that? surely not the woman
Never said that it women's fault. As matter of fact, women should be able to get all the aesthetic improvement they can in order to improve the society's ambiance.
So the reason for his rampage was because women didn't find him attractive and he's still a virgin at 22. That's what drove him over the edge? Like some of you have said, this guy is living in his own fairy land where he's entitled to everything. A lot of us including me are still virgins at his age or more, and yes we do feel a little lonely and disappointed with our situations, but we couldn't even fathom killing people as a way to vent it.
On May 26 2014 14:20 Durp wrote: Girls want muscles and brawn. Women want stability.
I hate to generalize like that, but every woman I've ever spoken to and every piece of anecdotal evidence my life has provided has corroborated that belief.
Most guys need to recognize that the strongest force for sexual desire is that of the woman's biological clock. Work towards a stable future, the women will find you.
edit; for the record and without any shred of modesty, I've never worked out a day in my life and am dating a girl way out of my league. At a certain point, knowing their children will eat every day and that they'll have a roof over their head beats out the initial "yum" factor of muscles. Work hard in life, get an education, women will follow. The biggest misconception is that you have to get laid in your early 20's for some self worth- and low and behold, we're back at the root of the discussion.
But see this directly conflicts with my own personal experience. I usually don't talk about my personal life on the internet, but I think it's relevant here so why not.
Roughly 20 years ago, my mother (now almost 50 years old) left my father, she took me and my younger brother out of country, we had to leave our family, our father and our home behind and why?
I never understood why and to be honest with you to this day I still don't really understand it. A few years ago I actually found the courage and asked my mother "why did you leave him?" and she said "I loved him, he was always good to all of us, but I had been with him pretty much all my life (they started dating at the age of 16) and thought I was missing out on something better."
And sure you could say that she was young and made a mistake, but really? My mother was 28 years old then and she destroyed a happy family, left a stable home and took her kids away from their own father and for what? The sake of adventure?
I can't really be mad at her for doing with she did, leaving our dad thinking there was a better, more exciting life to be had elsewhere (obvious nonsense by the way), because that really is her choice, but what I can't forgive is the fact that she took us with her.
Don't get me wrong, I love my mother, I talk to her almost every day, but this is the "dark side" of feminism from my own perspective and why so many happy marriages sometimes fail. It's not because any of the two partners don't love eachother, it's because of this feministic idea that women can never be truly happy with what they have, that they deserve better, that they need a job and can't be housewives even when their partner makes enough money for the family to live happily in a big house. This idea that feminism sometimes puts into women's heads even if they are already living perfectly happy lives is what ruined our family.
Me and my mother generally don't talk about this much because I know that she feels guilty, she has even come out several times and openly said that it was a mistake, but there is just nothing she could ever do to make me forgive her for taking us away from our own home and our father, because every time I needed my dad he just wasn't there.
The kid's manifesto... no words can describe it lol. It makes me feel sorry for him in the beginning, but towards the end I'm just shaking my head and thinking "Really? This is your thought process?"
I gotta agree with Dreamer here. I'm not old enough to say what it would be like in that position, but there's a lot of ways out of it before then. Self-improvement, not self-destruction.
On May 26 2014 14:36 Dreamer.T wrote: So the reason for his rampage was because women didn't find him attractive and he's still a virgin at 22. That's what drove him over the edge? Like some of you have said, this guy is living in his own fairy land where he's entitled to everything. A lot of us including me are still virgins at his age or more, and yes we do feel a little lonely and disappointed with our situations, but we couldn't even fathom killing people as a way to vent it.
due to highly over-protected childhood and unusually sensitive emotional nature making him socially unattractive, he had intense feelings of inadequacy to the point of believing he was a broken person by the age of 17; coupled with him being extraordinarily isolated this exacerbated feelings of competitiveness (envy) and defiance (hatred) towards other people .#
afaik the "reason" for his rampage is as such and started around the age of 16-17 - not around 22. but i havent read that far yet (no spoilers!!)
On May 26 2014 14:20 Durp wrote: Girls want muscles and brawn. Women want stability.
I hate to generalize like that, but every woman I've ever spoken to and every piece of anecdotal evidence my life has provided has corroborated that belief.
Most guys need to recognize that the strongest force for sexual desire is that of the woman's biological clock. Work towards a stable future, the women will find you.
edit; for the record and without any shred of modesty, I've never worked out a day in my life and am dating a girl way out of my league. At a certain point, knowing their children will eat every day and that they'll have a roof over their head beats out the initial "yum" factor of muscles. Work hard in life, get an education, women will follow. The biggest misconception is that you have to get laid in your early 20's for some self worth- and low and behold, we're back at the root of the discussion.
But see this directly conflicts with my own personal experience. I usually don't talk about my personal life on the internet, but I think it's relevant here so why not.
Roughly 20 years ago, my mother (now almost 50 years old) left my father, she took me and my younger brother out of country, we had to leave our family, our father and our home behind and why?
I never understood why and to be honest with you to this day I still don't really understand it. A few years ago I actually found the courage and asked my mother "why did you leave him?" and she said "I loved him, he was always good to all of us, but I had been with him pretty much all my life (they started dating at the age of 16) and thought I was missing out on something better."
And sure you could say that she was young and made a mistake, but really? My mother was 28 years old then and she destroyed a happy family, left a stable home and took her kids away from their own father and for what? The sake of adventure?
I can't really be mad at her for doing with she did, leaving our dad thinking there was a better, more exciting life to be had elsewhere (obvious nonsense by the way), because that really is her choice, but what I can't forgive is the fact that she took us with her.
Don't get me wrong, I love my mother, I talk to her almost every day, but this is the "dark side" of feminism from my own perspective and why so many happy marriages sometimes fail. It's not because any of the two partners don't love eachother, it's because of this feministic idea that women can never be truly happy with what they have, that they deserve better, that they need a job and can't be housewives even when their partner makes enough money for the family to live happily in a big house. This idea that feminism sometimes puts into women's heads even if they are already living perfectly happy lives is what ruined our family.
Me and my mother generally don't talk about this much because I know that she feels guilty, she has even come out several times and openly said that it was a mistake, but there is just nothing she could ever do to make me forgive her for taking us away from our own home and our father, because every time I needed my dad he just wasn't there.
28 is not old, its definitely a good - and a very early - time to be assessing your life and making changes.
also note that womans "reproductive" age is 2x shorter than man, many women at 30 are thinking that their time is ticking if they want to get things right
read the entire manifesto yesterday in like 3 hours straight.
No idea why I was so captivated, literally couldn't stop reading. Probably was a fascination of getting a look into the mind of someone who does something like this. Also was probably driven because I didn't know if it was going to get taken down like the youtube vid.
I think the circumstances of his broken family and how he perceived sexuality and social acceptance was seriously flawed. He wanted a meaningful/intimate relationship but had no idea how to go about attaining it. He would go out for walks every day and talk to no one and then get angry because his social life was terrible. He would go to parties and not say anything to anyone and then wonder why he had no friends...seriously...I'm surprised his friend James (or others) weren't able to make him realize how he was approaching the social aspect was just wrong. He thought it was supposed to just happen, and was too angry/bitter to realize or accept advice from others I guess. As someone else said earlier in this thread, I actually empathized with lots of the stuff he talked about. I chuckled at one point he even mentioned how Blizzard Entertainment was getting off track with recent WoW expansion, but that he wouldn't go into details because most of the people reading it wouldn't understand "complicated video game stuff like that." little did he know...I hope the media doesn't latch on to the video game aspect of things like they did with the Newtown shooter for a while. I'm sure as more people read the manifesto more stories will start coming out in the news. He spent a lot of time talking about WoW and gaming in the manifesto, the media seems to love every chance it has to blame mass shootings on video games.
Very disturbing and creepy stuff at the end though. The last 20 pages where he describes how society should be, and how women are all so terrible/misguided etc was really hard to read. I actually got finished reading and had to take a walk(ironic?) to clear my head because it was so freaky and weird, I usually don't get freaked out by stuff but the end of the manifesto was pretty heavy (after having read the entire thing straight up to that point...)
Also about his broken family- divorce really messes with kids. I'm not saying all divorce will screw kids, but more often than not super screwed up kids come from split/broken families. I think it might have to do with the circumstances of divorce, some couples can divorce and the kids transition smoothly, other times it might not be as smooth. Age probably has a big part of it too. The kid was only 8 when his parents divorced, and his father immediately introduced a new girlfriend into his life...what sort of message does that send an 8 year old kid really, it only seemed to fuel his misguided views as he got older. I could be jumping to conclusions of course but that's just my opinion.
On May 26 2014 14:20 Durp wrote: Girls want muscles and brawn. Women want stability.
I hate to generalize like that, but every woman I've ever spoken to and every piece of anecdotal evidence my life has provided has corroborated that belief.
Most guys need to recognize that the strongest force for sexual desire is that of the woman's biological clock. Work towards a stable future, the women will find you.
edit; for the record and without any shred of modesty, I've never worked out a day in my life and am dating a girl way out of my league. At a certain point, knowing their children will eat every day and that they'll have a roof over their head beats out the initial "yum" factor of muscles. Work hard in life, get an education, women will follow. The biggest misconception is that you have to get laid in your early 20's for some self worth- and low and behold, we're back at the root of the discussion.
But see this directly conflicts with my own personal experience. I usually don't talk about my personal life on the internet, but I think it's relevant here so why not.
Roughly 20 years ago, my mother (now almost 50 years old) left my father, she took me and my younger brother out of country, we had to leave our family, our father and our home behind and why?
I never understood why and to be honest with you to this day I still don't really understand it. A few years ago I actually found the courage and asked my mother "why did you leave him?" and she said "I loved him, he was always good to all of us, but I had been with him pretty much all my life (they started dating at the age of 16) and thought I was missing out on something better."
And sure you could say that she was young and made a mistake, but really? My mother was 28 years old then and she destroyed a happy family, left a stable home and took her kids away from their own father and for what? The sake of adventure?
I can't really be mad at her for doing with she did, leaving our dad thinking there was a better, more exciting life to be had elsewhere (obvious nonsense by the way), because that really is her choice, but what I can't forgive is the fact that she took us with her.
Don't get me wrong, I love my mother, I talk to her almost every day, but this is the "dark side" of feminism from my own perspective and why so many happy marriages sometimes fail. It's not because any of the two partners don't love eachother, it's because of this feministic idea that women can never be truly happy with what they have, that they deserve better, that they need a job and can't be housewives even when their partner makes enough money for the family to live happily in a big house. This idea that feminism sometimes puts into women's heads even if they are already living perfectly happy lives is what ruined our family.
Me and my mother generally don't talk about this much because I know that she feels guilty, she has even come out several times and openly said that it was a mistake, but there is just nothing she could ever do to make me forgive her for taking us away from our own home and our father, because every time I needed my dad he just wasn't there.
28 is not old, its definitely a good - and a very early - time to be assessing your life and making changes.
also note that womans "reproductive" age is 2x shorter than man, many women at 30 are thinking that their time is ticking if they want to get things right
And do you really think that gives a woman the right to destroy a happy family? I understand that it was her personal choice and she has every right to make that choice, but she should have never had the right to take me and my brother with her. Her choice to leave our family should have been her choice alone, it certainly wasn't the choice me or my brother would have made because we were happy.. so was she by the way, the only reason she decided to leave my dad was because she felt adventurous. It's just irresponsible and I see feminism having that effect on so many women, because in feminism housewives are being portrayed as slaves and told that "being independent" is so much better, but it's nonsense and it destroys families. Being independent can be better, but not if you are giving up a happy life just for the sake of being independent.
But it's a sad reality that child custody laws are set up in a way to make sure that the woman almost always wins, almost regardless of circumstances. I was too young at the time to even realize what was happening and so was my little brother, but it honestly blows my mind that the person deciding to leave a stable home and go on an adventure can even get child custody. It's crazy.
The rest was good, this is not so good. I've never heard a non-massively-privileged argument explaining how women control the 'dating pool'. Women have more power over who they choose as partners than they used to, but that's all, and given they used to have next to none, that's not saying a whole lot.
Not asking for a giant rebuttal here, just saying that could have been a little better worded, it's hard to let comments like that stand without question.
Women have more power over who they choose as partners than they used to, but that's all, and given they used to have next to none, that's not saying a whole lot.
That's such a malformed statement. What does history have to do with any of it? As far as I am aware women have exactly the same rights as men, they are free to choose their sexual partners in exactly the same way men are.... or am I missing something?
I was so scared for my friend who goes to UCSB when I found out about this. My heart goes out to the families who lost precious ones on this dreadful night.
Regarding sexual equality in dating, I feel the main imbalance is that the reasons why girls are attracted to guys are not that intuitive to most guys, and some guys have to change the way they think in order to not get depressed when they want to start the dating game. For a girl to attract guys, in most cases, she only has to look attractive. This is especially unfair to girls who are not born with good face and body, as they will have to put in a lot of work to their body to live up a social standard and attract the best possible guy. When you ask sexually frustrated guys: what attracts girls? They would say money, nice car, having a six-pack, something along these line. Those extrinsic qualities do help, but some sexually frustrated guys don't realize that intrinsic values like confidence, humor, a feeling of self-worth, knowing how to accept rejection are much more important. Even if they do realize it, it is much harder to work on your intrinsic values than putting on make ups. The idea of self improvement is probably the best thing to take away from the PUA community. Personally, this imbalance makes me feel fortunate that I'm a male because if I continuously work hard and improve my mindset, somewhere along the way, I can find the girl of my dream.
No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread? He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God". Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life.
On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote: No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread? He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God". Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life.
What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this.
Part of the problem is in the assumption that people need to date "within their level" Levels are purely subjective, and imo it's the blind acceptance of "leagues and levels" that lead to this mentality of sexual entitelement- not the fact that women control the dating pool.
That's very true. But I know I'm probably repeating myself here, but I still think it is "easier" for women to date men that are "naturally" out of their league than it is for men to date women that are "naturally" out of their league.
Amass money, get nubile and attractive women. It's that easy.
There is no such thing as "out of league". You either have traits that are desirable to your partner or you don't. The sooner people recognize that, the easier their dating life will be.
this question might've been asked million times, but why america allows more than 1 gun? Or machine guns, or assault rifles? I understand the concept of right to able to defend yourslef. But if you need so many weapons to defend its highly likely that you're already dead. I don't get the logic.
On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote: No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread? He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God". Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life.
What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this.
No sure, I'm probably going nowhere with this. The thought is that if you are prone to have self-reinforcing thoughts about feeling like God and killing other people it helps to have a father that has made movies about that kind of stuff.
Anyway, for me it's kind of hard to believe that this guy didn't have ANY success with girls. He is relatively good looking after all.
yup, about 8000 years of gendered oppression and the cultures, traditions and narratives that has left behind. So, yes, in theory they have equal rights, but the history of inequality is still there and so those rights are neither wholly upheld or supported by society. It's a similar situation to the plight of black americans. In theory they have equal rights, but the history of slavery, segregation and white supremacy means that actually doesn't mean everything is fine now.
America has to be conscientious every day in order to escape the shadow of racism (as do most other western societies TBH). In the same way, we need to be conscientious every day to escape the shadow of the treatment of women as barely better than property at best, not even really human at worst.
On May 26 2014 17:15 urboss wrote: No one is talking about his father, Peter Rodger, in this thread? He was assistant director of The Hunger Games, a movie where people slaughter each other. Before that, he created a documentary about God called "Oh My God". Given that the killer had no friends, his father was probably an important figure in his life.
What are you suggesting? That his father should not have made movies? I don't see where you are going with this.
No sure, I'm probably going nowhere with this. The thought is that if you are prone to have self-reinforcing thoughts about feeling like God and killing other people it helps to have a father that has made movies about that kind of stuff.
Anyway, for me it's kind of hard to believe that this guy didn't have ANY success with girls. He is relatively good looking after all.
He wasn't a troll, and he had money, but just watching his 5 minute rant it's plainly obvious why he's never had any success with girls. He's absolutely insufferable in a video I couldn't imagine spending any amount of time with him and not wanting to run away tearing my eyes out. Even if you take away his clear mental illness his mannerisms and personality alone make him entirely unfuckable by anyone with self respect.
I think PUA is attractive to many because it provides a limited frame of mind that seems to empower an individual in the short term though it inevitably will dis-empower them in the long term. This even extends to the "good" PUA companies that preach self-improvement based rhetoric and try to convince you that you are a flawed individual and must also repair yourself outside of sexual conquest (though sexual exploits with attractive women is still the only way to measure yourself in their system). I was obsessed with PUA until I lost both my virginity and the exacerbated preoccupation with being a virgin that had accompanied it. Shortly after that PUA lost its appeal entirely. Looking at some of the "field reports" I wrote at the time I am really shocked and humbled by the fact that I so easily and eagerly allowed myself to get sucked into an ideological system that dis-empowered myself and my ability to connect with other people. I hope any in this thread that have dabbled into it will reconsider the direction they are going.
yup, about 8000 years of gendered oppression and the cultures, traditions and narratives that has left behind. So, yes, in theory they have equal rights, but the history of inequality is still there and so those rights are neither wholly upheld or supported by society. It's a similar situation to the plight of black americans. In theory they have equal rights, but the history of slavery, segregation and white supremacy means that actually doesn't mean everything is fine now.
America has to be conscientious every day in order to escape the shadow of racism (as do most other western societies TBH). In the same way, we need to be conscientious every day to escape the shadow of the treatment of women as barely better than property at best, not even really human at worst.
Thinking of gender history as the oppression of one gender by the other is more than a little misleading. Throughout history women have largely been denied to hold positions of power and meaningful responsibility, and men have been made to fight and die and perform backbreaking physical labour based on their gendered ability to do so. Men have always been the legitimate targets aswell as the perpetrators of violence, and men have done their best to shield their women from it. Women were a class that lacked many rights, but also the unpleasant obligations, and enjoyed a protected status that was not extended to men
There are no cultures that unambiguously treated their women as chattle. Respect for women as more gentle and nurturing than men is universal. Male gods were feared, but godesses were worshiped, most notably by soldiers who most commonly prayed to mother type godesses including the christian Mary.
We are a species that naturally and perhaps unrightfully assigns profound meaning to the concept of gender. Not as one being unambiguously better than the other, but as having different roles. I think comparing gender discrimination to slavery and white supremacy is wrong not just because of difference in impact but because they are different kinds of things entirely. I agree that to overcome gender issues we must be conscientious, but that is not achieved by adopting the feminist narrative that can turn the actions of a deranged individual into an event that serves their agenda.
Quite interesting to see that he didn't try to kill male people. If he was only jealous he would have targeted them first. It is very telling... women got the power nowadays and his frustration was directed toward them.
Thinking of gender history as the oppression of one gender by the other is more than a little misleading. Throughout history women have largely been denied to hold positions of power and meaningful responsibility, and men have been made to fight and die and perform backbreaking physical labour based on their gendered ability to do so
Oppression is artificially denying a group the chance for self determination. It doesn't matter if I keep you in a room, shield you from every threat and give you your every heart's desire except the freedom to leave the room, I am still oppressing you.
As you say, not every society treated women as chattel, but as you say, every society (well, a vast, vast majority) constructed a female ideal that was ultimately subservient to male power (thanks to men's ability to simply kill/torture anyone who tried to resist that power). Women couldn't, say, carry weapons to fend off male aggressors, defend their persons as a group (literally band together and stab anyone who tried to make them do something), or organize their own political groups to advance their own interests and freedoms. In some societies this was enacted through fear, in others through guilt, in others simply through literally locking women into a building and not letting them outside where they could learn anything other than what society wanted them to. In all though, men, or women acting on behalf of male-approved systems, would excise those who did not conform. In the majority of cases, this excision was so brutal that I can guarantee you would not sleep again soundly in your life if you witnessed it happen to someone.
I empathize with the idea that men have done an insane amount of suffering and dying to maintain these ideals which are in part perpetrated by women who are comfortable with the system (or at least jealous of anyone who doesn't have to go through the same oppression). But this is not, N. O. T, a 'trade in' scenario. You don't get to say 'well, I locked you in a room, but I brought you everything you wanted and you're ungracious enough to ask to leave the room where you're going to get raped by dickwolves? I sweated for years, sacrificed all my other pursuits to bring you all this stuff, I think you owe me at least just to be happy to sit in the room so I don't gotta save your ass'. As I'm sure you recognize, that's basically the essence of male entitlement and why it is utter bunk.
The concept of oppression does not give a two bit fuckpenny about how much sweat and blood and tears you expended to make the oppression more bearable. It's still oppression. It's still pure ethical poison, however you dress it up.
I think comparing gender discrimination to slavery and white supremacy is wrong not just because of difference in impact but because they are different kinds of things entirely. I agree that to overcome gender issues we must be conscientious, but that is not achieved by adopting the feminist narrative that can turn the actions of a deranged individual into an event that serves their agenda.
I actually agree with this. Feminists using this event to attack the male population at large are abhorrent (and I'm not doing that, rather responding to other assumptions made here). However I don't see how you can say that the oppression of the other (in this case other races) is fundamentally different to the oppression of women. Superficially different, but you're going to have to elaborate on what the fundamental difference is that means we need to look at the two using separate frameworks.
Quite interesting to see that he didn't try to kill male people. If he was only jealous he would have targeted them first. It is very telling... women got the power nowadays and his frustration was directed toward them.
He murdered three men in his apartment before he went on the spree.
The rest was good, this is not so good. I've never heard a non-massively-privileged argument explaining how women control the 'dating pool'. Women have more power over who they choose as partners than they used to, but that's all, and given they used to have next to none, that's not saying a whole lot.
Not asking for a giant rebuttal here, just saying that could have been a little better worded, it's hard to let comments like that stand without question.
Fair point, and that statement was poorly worded I totally agree.
I think what I was getting at is the shift in the social dating paradigm. Women still go out to impress men, that point can't be disputed, but I'd argue that the overriding belief in dating currently is that the man must impress the woman, to the point that he rises above his other male competitors. If he does so, the woman will accept him, and the interaction can progress. I'd say this is the opposite of the vast, vast majority of human history in which a woman was (generalization) subject to the wants and interests of a man. ie. A woman 50 years ago waited to be accepted and pursued by a man, she settled down, and started a family. Divorce was taboo, especially if filed by the woman. A woman now can wade through several suitors until she finds one she deems worthy of herself. She holds the (objective) power in the relationship, as (imo) society has shifted to a state where the man must "earn" the woman. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but I think the nature of the dating dynamic rests these days on the demands and desires of the female as opposed to the male.
The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
We had a family and it was the fault of my dad (he was abusive at times and had an affair).
After the divorce, we moved and went through a few apartments until we managed to afford a house about 5 years after the divorce.
My mom has done a lot for the family (and even does the dirty work such as going up the roof, painting, worrying about mold, going under the house to check for rusted pipes, cleaning dirt from under the house cleaning mold, etc).
Also she has still stayed single to this day (worrying more about the family than guys). She is in her 50s right now and my parents divorced over 20 years ago.
She is happy for the family and she has no regrets.
I won't describe the specifics but my uncle had to go away for 4-5 years (and it didn't involve making money).
My aunt had to raise my two cousins alone (they're both younger than me) but she managed to pull through.
She also had a job (actually she always had a job to be fair).
Anyway, fast forward to just recently and my uncle is now back. They're still together and she still cares for him (despite for something that had him have to go away) and also despite the fact he cannot get a job anymore basically (records).
She is now the sole provider for the family. They're still together despite what happened.
She could have left him and found someone else (my uncle didn't have any family he knew or anyone to blame us if she did) but she didn't.
There are tons of families that breakup for various reasons. Your reason is only one case (which in this case, appears to be the fault of your mom) and that case shouldn't be used to generalize.
I hope my two family stories will help change your view a bit.
On May 26 2014 17:12 boon2537 wrote: Regarding sexual equality in dating, I feel the main imbalance is that the reasons why girls are attracted to guys are not that intuitive to most guys, and some guys have to change the way they think in order to not get depressed when they want to start the dating game. For a girl to attract guys, in most cases, she only has to look attractive. This is especially unfair to girls who are not born with good face and body, as they will have to put in a lot of work to their body to live up a social standard and attract the best possible guy. When you ask sexually frustrated guys: what attracts girls? They would say money, nice car, having a six-pack, something along these line. Those extrinsic qualities do help, but some sexually frustrated guys don't realize that intrinsic values like confidence, humor, a feeling of self-worth, knowing how to accept rejection are much more important. Even if they do realize it, it is much harder to work on your intrinsic values than putting on make ups. The idea of self improvement is probably the best thing to take away from the PUA community. Personally, this imbalance makes me feel fortunate that I'm a male because if I continuously work hard and improve my mindset, somewhere along the way, I can find the girl of my dream.
I have to agree. Looks is definitely the first impression one usually gets. However, a lot of girls care more about (or they will eventually care more about) those intrinsic qualities as you said. + Show Spoiler +
I remember reading a site and going to a site for guys needing help getting girls. It was a forum for shy guys.
One post I read disgusted me and put me off from that site.
There was a girl who joined and asked advice in getting a shy guy (at work) to like him.
Every few days, she would post her progress and ask for more advice.
After about a few pages of discussion, etc...
Long story short was that people said maybe she was ugly and guys want pretty girls (I remember hearing this was sad by a mod too).
And the next few posts didn't disagree or provide an alternative (no one said "maybe he's just not interested").
That post disgusted me (because it was on a forum where guys basically whine about not having girls... correction - they whine about not having pretty girls).
And let me say that the posts there, most guys were kind of entitled and liked to play "the victim". Now, I'm sure there are many people that go through a stage like that (then experience it throughout) but it is important to know it can only be just a stage and temporary. A lot of what people think about their own feelings and emotions is incorrect at times.
People have a great capability to change perspective on things and when they do, they'll find they'll react and feel to a lot of things much differently. At least for me, I've found it really helpful.
Anyway, back me complaining about that site.
I know lots of girls who don't have anyone.
Why? Because there aren't as pretty as other girls.
To be fair, I don't know the specifics of every guy but I know a few girls myself.
How many guys out there with no girls, are they looking for every girl or only a select few girls (based only on appearance)?
At least for me, I do know a few girls who want guys but they aren't as pretty as other girls.
is that girls are more passive while guys are more on the initiative when it comes to the dating game.
For a girl to want to be someone, they want to know more about them and that usually involves getting to be with and know a person a lot.
While guys, if a girl looks pretty, they go for them.
And if a guy approaches a girl like they usually accept if they seem like a nice guy and (and if this is a date or something) a good looking guy.
The reason is because it's a good way to start knowing someone.
What I'm saying is... it's really competitive (between the guys).
However, whether those relationship stays is another different story.
The problem is, a lot of people look it like that. The thing is, most girls want to really know someone and if they know someone they like, they then go for it (while guys go for it first on looks).
In my experiences (there are a few girls I know that want me...) one way to get a girl is to first be friends with them and be as good as friend as possible and as long as possible.
This may mean in some future, you may get that girl (bonus points if they broke up with someone who was bad to them and you were the guy that she talked to).
Of course cases like those aren't quick but they're doable.
Again, I can't speak for everyone but I think one problem is that some guys only look at things one way.
Also, I'll talk about my own experiences (and in response to how the person acted).
I've been through a stage where I was jealous and I wanted a girl (a friend) to be with me or do things with me all the times. I got mad and in general, the emotions "seemed right" but it was wrong (and definitely wrong once I received it on the receiving end).
Sometimes, you may feel emotions but a lot of the times there is a way for you to think clearly.
I've played an MMO once and I played as a girl and I always said that I was a girl IRL (whenever I asked). (I was playing a girl character and I didn't want people to call me a "guy", I wanted to be called a girl , so I just said I was girl IRL since that was the easiest way.)
I've had two experiences with two separate people who got close to me and who both started talking to me first (and they were the ones who requested the friend invite first and I usually accept any friend invite).
Some people aren't as interested in the social aspect of MMOs (there are a lot of MMOs that can be enjoyed for the story or whatever and casually without even playing with anyone else for most of the time) but some people do value the social aspect a lot.
And these two people I have met were the latter it seemed (I was more the former but if people wanted to group together to do something then I usually don't mind).
Anyway, I'm a nice person and I help people a lot in MMOs.
One guy that I helped a lot got really close to me.
I don't want to get too much in to detail but they acted nice and reasonable most of the time but it wasn't reflected in what he did or say to me at times.
There were times when I didn't want to play with them and they were passive aggressive and played the victim a lot.
They tried to make me feel bad (I do take relationships in games seriously if people take them though since while it is online, they are a person and if they take it seriously, I take them seriously and I do want everyone playing games to enjoy playing the games they play).
Anyway, I tried to be as nice as possible. And I really do care about people and their feelings (if anyone knows me from the initial SC2 proleague LR threads.. I was vocal against caster bashing and negative comments and here is a post I made on the website feedback forums over a year ago about this issue when it sort of plagued the LR threads at the time).
I view myself as a very nice guy (I help and I give a lot of stuff away in the MMO I played and to these two people too) and I really do care about people's feelings (otherwise I wouldn't try so hard to defend people on the internet).
Long story short, I really understand how it is to be on the receiving end. Despite being a nice person in a game and helping out whenever possible, there were times where this person felt like just because I wasn't playing with them, then had the right to say negative things or try to make me feel bad or whatever false assumptions.
Sometimes you think of reasons why a girl isn't spending time with you or whatever. Then you become jealous or hurt. Some cases are legit but others may be just in your mind.
From my two experiences with two people pretending to be a girl in an MMO...
I find that people may think they're nice or reasonable but when they act a certain way (like when they think the most important thing is for me to always spend time with them in game, and if I don't, they suddenly get offended, hurt, and then try to make me feel bad), do they think that's desirable in any relationship and do they think what they're doing is really caring for the other person (when they say "they do care", is doing or acting that way really caring about the person)?
It's not and from these two experiences (and from my own experience with a girl myself), I find that a lot of people hurt themselves by acting that way (then assuming negative things when things don't go their way).
And if anyone is curious, no I didn't RP as a girl IRL or anything, I just said I was a girl IRL (and only if they asked) and left it at that. I didn't talk or do anything that even involves anything related to me IRL outside of that (that's why I didn't think it was relevant if I just said I was a girl IRL; again, I just wanted to be called a girl in game since I played a girl character and I thought I should just say I am a girl IRL, and I only said it if anyone asked me + I also left it there and went no further in regards to any RL discussions about me, even if they wanted more details). I was playing casually and only talked to them when they talked to me and it was basically really casual level. I pretended to be a girl but I was only doing my own thing (outside of pretending to be a girl, I acted normal for someone who wants to play a game to just play a game... play the game. I act nice whenever possible).
Again, I did take friendships online seriously though (especially if they take it seriously). So, if they needed someone to talk to, I would talk to them (though I didn't talk about my own RL stuff, I did listen and tried to cheer them up and I also played with them). If they wanted help with something, I would help. What I didn't want was them to be passive aggressive towards me or try to make me feel bad whenever I didn't want to group with them to do something one day (I group up with them if there was something that required two or more people to do. When something can be done solo, I usually didn't group too much with them if that is the case but I would still group with them if they needed someone to be and talk to them for a while).
(Also, I was the one being nice to them and helping them out but they didn't appreciate it as such or at least appreciate it through their actions and words. Instead, they ended up with a lot of negative assumptions about me whenever I didn't group up with them, which they shouldn't have had in the first place considering that I was the only usually helping them or being nice to them. When you have a friendship with someone, you don't want to assume negative things and assume they they actually don't really want to be your friend, especially if they are as nice to you as possible. I felt like with this person, they didn't respect me or my feelings yet they wanted as much as possible from me. That's not a really a friendship and that's not really caring for someone.)
Again, I didn't RP as a girl or anything those times (I just acted normally), I did let them assume I was a girl but again, I didn't think it was really relevant (and even now, if anyone asks, I still say I am a girl IRL just because I want to be called a girl when I am playing my girl character).
So when two different people suddenly act really needy and w/e all of a sudden, then they act this way towards me (again, I am nice guy in games) because they start thinking up negative assumptions whenever I don't group with them all the time...
First, you may think, they're only doing that because their RL relationships aren't great...
However, a different perspective is that maybe their RL relationships aren't great because of the way they act (and they happen to act the same way they do IRL as in an MMO).
Sometimes you have to be the girl (or pretend to be a girl or try to have the perspective of a girl) to know how it feels or how certain people can treat you a certain way.
Edit - I edited out the transwoman talk (mainly because it opens a whole nother can of worms and has its own discrimination problems).
Still though, at least in terms of social aspects (how guys can come off to girls and how girls react and how guys react to those reactions), view things from the girl side to make things a bit more understanding. Even when I only pretended to be a girl (and only because I didn't want to be called a guy by people when playing my girl character), there were times when people assumed a lot of negative things and acted unpleasantly.
The last few posts have had a bit of negativity (intended or not, it seemed negative to me) and I just wanted to address that.
Edit 2 - I updated my MMO experiences again to provide a bit more details.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
you don't go around caring about the motives of the mentally ill. If this thing went to trial, his lawyer would probably have him go for the insanity defense, which would mean his motives were irrelevant.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
you don't go around caring about the motives of the mentally ill. If this thing went to trial, his lawyer would probably have him go for the insanity defense, which would mean his motives were irrelevant.
Trials are for the pursuit of justice and not an inquiry into why something happened. And folks most certainly care for the motives of the mentally ill, they are called psychologists and there is no doubt much for them to work with in this case.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
That's not the explanation. He's mentally unstable, now what factors take his instability and put him out onto the street shooting and stabbing the people? What gave him his sense of entitlement? The misogynistic traits are pretty explainable by a read of his manifesto. But it's a matter of why his thought process was the way it was.
Which goes back to my original point: There are tons of misogynists out there. There are tons of people with an overinflated sense of entitlement. Both groups might be somewhat of a nuisance, but there's almost never a case where one of them goes on a killing spree. So why this time and not any other time? And I believe the answer to that question has nothing to do with gender issues or gun control.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
Absolutely no one in this thread is trying to make this a feminist issue. Instead a few people in this thread are expressing viewpoints that are for some reason associated with feminism to counter all of the individuals posting silly misogynistic stereotypes about women that they believe contributed to this dude's violent behavior. I also agree this is almost purely a case of mental illness.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
Absolutely no one in this thread is trying to make this a feminist issue. Instead a few people in this thread are expressing viewpoints that are for some reason associated with feminism to counter all of the individuals posting silly misogynistic stereotypes about women that they believe contributed to this dude's violent behavior. I also agree this is almost purely a case of mental illness.
There have been a few posts suggesting that this is a feminist issue, and that viewpoint is common in feminist places on the internet. It is a fair point of discussion.
I guess the case is relatively similar to Brevik 3 years ago. That is, not so much the motives themselves, but the strong, ideological, self-reinforced thinking that led to it.
Brevik first was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic, but people called bullshit on that. A second diagnosis stated that he was not psychotic, but had a Narcistic Personality Disorder (a diagnosis you can basically attest to one third of mankind).
My guess is that neither Brevik nor Rodger were mentally impaired, just like the guys responsible for 9/11 were not mentally impaired. All they have in common is a bunch of extremely strong, self-reinforced ideologies that were thought out (using flawed reasoning) to the bitter end and an iron will to execute on them.
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote: Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac. "You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
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......
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
I can't believe some people are actually sympathizing with him because he got 'friendzoned'. Please, go skim his 140-page manifesto and go see for yourself what kind of person Elliot Rogers was. Not him nor any other male out there is entitled to a beautiful woman, like he clearly states in both his manifesto and vlogs.
I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote: Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac. "You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
Oh wait...
Mass shootings are on the order of 1 percent of gun violence in the USA. I don't know that this news is a platform for the gun debate. I mean, this guy stabbed 3 people, but you wouldn't use one anecdote like that as an indictment of Wal-mart for selling knives to people at literally any time they want (as Wal-mart is open 24 hours).
Definitely we'd like to connect mental health to gun ownership but it seems intrinsically hard to me - what's a way to really know someone is a psychopathic killer before they go on a killing spree? This whole thing is such a complicated issue to even think through, let alone solve in the real world.
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote: Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac. "You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
Oh wait...
Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states......
Oh wait....
Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube.
In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license.
On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote: I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism.
You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers.
On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote: I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism.
You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers.
On May 27 2014 00:43 Nausea wrote: I'm one of the people who thinks USA should get more gun control. But in this case I fail to see how this would have been avoided by that. You would have to go to extremes to make him not able to get a gun legally.
His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic.
He had aspergers, basically a form of autism.
You are correct, sorry for not mentioning that. He did have Aspergers.
Aspergers is no longer in the DSM.
Indeed, but only because it was merged into Autism Spectrum Disorder, a diagnosis the shooter might very likely still match.
Which didn't make him shoot people. People with Aspergers are perfectly normal, they just have (a lot) of trouble recognizing nonverbal communications and other social interactions. It's illiteracy coupled with dyslexia for social interaction.
It probably contributed to his social isolation but he wasn't violent because of Aspergers.
Apologies if that's not what you meant, but people have a tendency to lump Aspergers together with other actually dangerous autistic and mental disorders.
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote: Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac. "You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
Oh wait...
Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states......
Oh wait....
Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube.
In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license.
There's a lot of paranoia that comes from my friends in the gun rights camp. It can be frustrating but I do my best to convince people that we need to do something about gun access to sick individuals...to no avail. There's not much logic on either side of the debate unfortunately.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
On May 25 2014 08:54 Sgany wrote: Gun regulation is not even the problem around this. The dark side of the friendzone myth. According to his self-taped confession, Elliot Rodger killed 7 people and injured 7 more in a shooting rampage because he was a virgin at 22 and saw girls "throwing themselves at obnoxious brutes" and decided there needed to be "retribution" for "every single blonde slut". This is a direct result of male entitlement and the idea that young men are in any way 'owed' sex. Sexism quite literally turned a young man into a homicidal maniac. "You have denied me a happy life, and in turn, I will deny all of you life".
Maybe reconsider labelling feminists as whiney people who worry for no reason.
Yes, because allowing psychopaths clear access to guns at any time they want convicted criminal or not isn't part of the problem of all the random shooting rampages that happen in the USA but interestingly enough, almost never to their northern neighbor.
Oh wait...
Except it happened in California which is one of the strictist gun control states......
Oh wait....
Yeah, I don't get this, maybe someone from the US can clarify. He was diagnosed with a disorder from a young age, was heavily medicated and went to almost daily sessions with multiple therapists. OK, I can understand how he could have slipped through the system and bought 3 handguns. But what I can't understand is how he got to keep these guns after the police were told he was posting death threats on youtube.
In my country if you get into any, and I mean any kind of violent or non-violent trouble and police get involved you auto-lose your gun license.
There's a lot of paranoia that comes from my friends in the gun rights camp. It can be frustrating but I do my best to convince people that we need to do something about gun access to sick individuals...to no avail. There's not much logic on either side of the debate unfortunately.
There is, it simply gets covered up by the mountain of political bullshit that rumbles every time something involving guns happens.
Which didn't make him shoot people. People with Aspergers are perfectly normal, they just have (a lot) of trouble recognizing nonverbal communications and other social interactions. It's illiteracy coupled with dyslexia for social interaction.
It probably contributed to his social isolation but he wasn't violent because of Aspergers.
Apologies if that's not what you meant, but people have a tendency to lump Aspergers together with other actually dangerous autistic and mental disorders.
No I did not mean that made him dangerous, and I know since I've been up for testing to see if I have it or not.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Of course it's possible that the popular tumblr-feminism has clouded my perception of actual feminism. But then the problem isn't so much my own perception but the fact that so many people self-identify as feminists and advance arguments and viewpoints in the name of feminism, that at least according to you have nothing to do with feminism.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Of course it's possible that the popular tumblr-feminism has clouded my perception of actual feminism. But then the problem isn't so much my own perception but the fact that so many people self-identify as feminists and advance arguments and viewpoints in the name of feminism, that at least according to you have nothing to do with feminism.
So since you're anti-feminist to some degree we can characterize you with the worst elements of misogyny?
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Of course it's possible that the popular tumblr-feminism has clouded my perception of actual feminism. But then the problem isn't so much my own perception but the fact that so many people self-identify as feminists and advance arguments and viewpoints in the name of feminism, that at least according to you have nothing to do with feminism.
So since you're anti-feminist to some degree we can characterize you with the worst elements of misogyny?
No that wouldn't make any sense because I don't self-identify as anti-feminist. Your logic is seriously flawed here.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Of course it's possible that the popular tumblr-feminism has clouded my perception of actual feminism. But then the problem isn't so much my own perception but the fact that so many people self-identify as feminists and advance arguments and viewpoints in the name of feminism, that at least according to you have nothing to do with feminism.
The problem is that feminism doesn't really have a set agenda anymore. There's a general consenus for gender equality but nobody can define what equality is or what we would have to do to get to it, or whether it would even be a good thing for 100% equality. And of course it's susceptible, like any political organization, to having the silent majority overshadowed in public perception by the vocal minority of radfems.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
Actually it's not. Feminism is about a lot more than simple legal equality.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
Actually it's not. Feminism is about a lot more than simple legal equality.
You are confused b/w the traditional model of feminism and the modernized version of it.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Of course it's possible that the popular tumblr-feminism has clouded my perception of actual feminism. But then the problem isn't so much my own perception but the fact that so many people self-identify as feminists and advance arguments and viewpoints in the name of feminism, that at least according to you have nothing to do with feminism.
The problem is that feminism doesn't really have a set agenda anymore. There's a general consenus for gender equality but nobody can define what equality is or what we would have to do to get to it, or whether it would even be a good thing for 100% equality. And of course it's susceptible, like any political organization, to having the silent majority overshadowed in public perception by the vocal minority of radfems.
Women have been having the identical right as men for the last 20 years probably so #feminism shouldn't even be a "movement" anymore due to constant push by the government to improve the education and setting a workplace ratio of men and women.
As of now, feminism is about giving women more right to get away with unethical decisions and abuse the system as much as they can. But nature will always find a way to swing the pendulum into balance so I'm not exactly too worried about the repercussion of those abuses.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
Actually it's not. Feminism is about a lot more than simple legal equality.
Some feminists think that, some feminists don't. I've met and talked to people in both camps. Which begs the question, which of you is right and how are we outsiders supposed to know?
I mean the feminist tumblr-community is alot more radical in their views than I think you are, so are they wrong, are they not real feminists and more importantly who gets to decide what feminism is or even what it should be today?
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
And SlixSC, KwarK have a history of trolling people regarding the feminism movement. He doesn't actually believe the words he writes. It is just to get people riled up in his argument so don't get too emotionally to his points. Instead laugh at it.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
Actually it's not. Feminism is about a lot more than simple legal equality.
Some feminists think that, some feminists don't. I've met and talked to people in both camps. Which begs the question, which of you is right and how are we outsiders supposed to know?
I mean the feminist tumblr-community is alot more radical in their views than I think you are, so are they wrong, are they not real feminists and more importantly who gets to decide what feminism is or even what it should be today?
Nobody does, it's a broad umbrella, not a single unified group. It can be split into waves regarding what the objectives are but there is an awful lot of internal debate over what feminism means and that's healthy.
On May 26 2014 23:14 Goldfish wrote: @SlixSC - About your story (on page 12) - I understand but that's only one case.
Now I definitely understand some of your previous comments but again, with your family, that was only one case which shouldn't be used as the norm.
Just going to point out that I didn't imply it was the norm or say anything like that. My intention was to point out how feminist rhetoric can sometimes put ideas into women's heads that don't change their lives for the better but the worse.
This idea that is often propagated in feminism that being a housewive isn't good enough for a woman, that they have to be independent (at all costs it sometimes seems), just for the sake of not being dependant on a man can lead to good outcomes but it can also lead to equally bad outcomes.
What I'm crticising is that feminism (just like any other ideology) pretty much always tells a one-sided story, they'll tell you about stories of succesful women who left their husbands and are now living more happy lives, but I have never seen a feminist website report on women which left their husbands for the sake of being independent and destroyed perfectly happy families in the process.
You never really hear about these stories from feminists and why? Because they don't fit with the feminist narrative that all women need to be independent, etc..
Feminism often times just presents us with very simplistic and narrow-minded views. I'm all for giving women the tools to be independent if they really want to be, but things are more complicated than that, we shouldn't be advocating for independence just for the sake of political correctness. For some people independence is good, for others it isn't and to ignore the different circumstances (because let's not forget, not all women/people are the same, I would go as far as to say that some people even need a strong partner in their lives in order to be happy) into consideration is simply narrow-minded and only serves one purpose... to advance the feminist agenda within our society even if some perfectly happy families are destroyed in the process. Collateral damage I guess.
Feminism is not about telling women how to live their lives, it's about giving them choice. You just don't have a working concept of what feminism. Anyone who tells a woman that her choice to do X is wrong is a shitty feminist.
Actually feminism is just about setting the law so that women are giving the same amount of right(s) as men and promoting gender equality. Does giving women the choice of getting away with theft and murder feminism? Not traditionally.
Actually it's not. Feminism is about a lot more than simple legal equality.
Some feminists think that, some feminists don't. I've met and talked to people in both camps. Which begs the question, which of you is right and how are we outsiders supposed to know?
I mean the feminist tumblr-community is alot more radical in their views than I think you are, so are they wrong, are they not real feminists and more importantly who gets to decide what feminism is or even what it should be today?
Nobody does, it's a broad umbrella, not a single unified group. It can be split into waves regarding what the objectives are but there is an awful lot of internal debate over what feminism means and that's healthy.
Maybe, but then you can't really blame people (not that you have) for not subscribing to the idea of feminism when even feminists themselves are unsure what it is.
Some feminist ideas I find good, but there are alot of feminist ideas I find absolutely silly and in some cases even bizarre. So I cannot possibly subscribe to that ideology, it wouldn't make sense. But that doesn't make me an anti-feminist or mysoginistic by any means it just means that feminism as an ideology is not consistent enough for me to possibly subscribe to it.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
The problem comes when they're legally equal but societally unequal. The example that comes to mind is the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to deal with the societal problem of domestic abuse, but in practice ignores male victims, creating legal inequality.
This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote: This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
The fact that they don't, or that they're so disorganized, is the reason they lack the support they could otherwise have.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Oh God, here we go again. "Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?" "Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?"
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology.
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote: This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
The fact that they don't, or that they're so disorganized, is the reason they lack the support they could otherwise have.
If you're of the mind that the black rights movement really took off once the NAACP opened their central office, you're sorely mistaken. That's simply not how social movements work. Sure, there is a general trend with which the progress of a movement and its relative organization both increase in similar amounts, but the war over who gets to represent what movement is a conflict that never ends.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Oh God, here we go again. "Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?" "Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?"
Gays face far, far more discrimination than women or minorities. For your second question, this is actually what I believe. Racism/sexism are exacerbated by people trying to split off everyone into separate camps instead of looking at integrative policies.
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote: This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
They almost can be in the information age. Every movement nowadays ends up with a website they all frequent, either by design or happenstance. The Social Justice crowd has tumblr, atheists have r/atheism, young conservatives have /pol/, etc.
Now, they're not nearly as organized as central offices or the like, but they become hive-minds.
I'd almost go so far as to say the ease of communication in the modern era is actually hurting social movements. It's much easier for them to get co-opted by idiots nowadays. Thats why /pol/ is slowly becoming all Nazi's, r/atheism is becoming a bunch of edgy kids, and the Social Justice tumblr blogs put "trigger warnings" on everything.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
On May 27 2014 02:49 farvacola wrote: This notion that social movements can be criticized as though they all report to a central office seems like something out of a middle school social studies classroom discussion.
They almost can be in the information age. Every movement nowadays ends up with a website they all frequent, either by design or happenstance. The Social Justice crowd has tumblr, atheists have r/atheism, young conservatives have /pol/, etc.
Now, they're not nearly as organized as central offices or the like, but they become hive-minds.
I'd almost go so far as to say the ease of communication in the modern era is actually hurting social movements. It's much easier for them to get co-opted by idiots nowadays. Thats why /pol/ is slowly becoming all Nazi's, r/atheism is becoming a bunch of edgy kids, and the Social Justice tumblr blogs put "trigger warnings" on everything.
"They almost can" and "they can" are dangerously more different than their appearance would suggest. Furthermore, I would argue that the apparent unification of social movements that comes with internet based interaction is, if anything, just another shorthand way of referencing things that cannot be easily referenced. There is simply far too much confirmation and access bias that goes into the forming of internet communities, so much so that to readily assume that most end up significantly different than their real life counterparts seems very appropriate.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology.
Your problem is that you are falsely equivocating the two concepts of an ideology and a political movement. An ideology you subscribe to because you agree with it's ideas, a political movement is something that can only succeed the ideology not preceed it.
Yes, if I subscribe to an ideology it better be consistent with my own world-views, I see no point in subscribing to an ideology if that ideology doesn't accurately reflect my own beliefs.
I really despise this kind of new-age thinking where everyone needs to subscribe to an ideology, people can no longer have their own opinions and beliefs because we need to standardize everything, every thought is part of an ideology, people's beliefs and their worldviews must always necessarily be the result of some ideology, it's almost unthinkable that people just have their own opinions and beliefs and therefore don't feel the need to subscribe to any particular ideology.
And all this does is it exposes the biggest problem of people like you and Kwark, you don't self-identify as feminists because you agree with the ideology as a whole(which Kwark even admitted to an extent) but because you are political animals with an agenda.
So can we stop pretending that this is an intellectual debate and not just people with political agendas choosing whatever political movement they can best make use of to advance their own political agenda irrespective of wether or not they even agree with the ideology behind it?
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and pretend to be subscribed to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Oh God, here we go again. "Why do people advocate for gay rights? Why not promote humanism?" "Why can't racial minorities promote x rights? Why don't they try to be American?"
Gays face far, far more discrimination than women or minorities. For your second question, this is actually what I believe. Racism/sexism are exacerbated by people trying to split off everyone into separate camps instead of looking at integrative policies.
My point is that they all strive for equality. In most cases, especially today, feminism, racial equality, and gay rights are a branch of humanism. Feminism raises issues concerning gender, racial equality raises issues concerning race, and gay rights raises issues concerning equality for gays. Whenever I hear someone use the "humanist" argument, I cannot help but wonder if the person thinks the ideology in question is not for humanity, but rather for some kind of supremacy.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no.
Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men.
You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it.
Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 02:26 KwarK wrote: You have no clue what you're talking about.
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no.
Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men.
You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it.
Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against.
If feminism was effective at dealing with issues like these, there wouldn't be a Men's Rights Movement in the first place.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
Almost all ideologies end up inconsistent at one pass or another. Humanism as a literary genre is wonderful, as a political movement it is simply far too lukewarm. Feminism, as a surviving political label, suggests that there are still enough problems to merit a gendered approach to equality. Clearly, you do not believe this is the case, and that is where the disagreement ought take place, not over a fantasy world in which folks yearn to identify with the most consistent ideology.
Your problem is that you are falsely equivocating the two concepts of an ideology and a political movement. An ideology you subscribe to because you agree with it's ideas, a political movement is something that can only succeed the ideology not preceed it.
Yes, if I subscribe to an ideology it better be consistent with my own world-views, I see no point in subscribing to an ideology if that ideology doesn't accurately reflect my own beliefs.
I really despise this kind of new-age thinking where everyone needs to subscribe to an ideology, people can no longer have their own opinions and beliefs because we need to standardize everything, every thought is part of an ideology, people's beliefs and their worldviews must always necessarily be the result of some ideology, it's almost unthinkable that people just have their own opinions and beliefs and therefore don't feel the need to subscribe to any particular ideology.
And all this does is it exposes the biggest problem of people like you and Kwark, you don't self-identify as feminists because you agree with the ideology as a whole(which Kwark even admitted to an extent) but because you are political animals with an agenda.
So can we stop pretending that this is an intellectual debate and not just people with political agendas choosing whatever political movement they can best make use of to advance their own political agenda irrespective of wether or not they even agree with the ideology behind it?
Your approach to this topic tells me that you've not met many nuanced views on it, so for that I can but apologize for the society in which we live. Nothing in my previous post is meant to describe the conceptual nature of ideologies past how they function in and around politically charged topics. If we are to get down to the nitty gritty of how it is people take on ideologies and identify with them, I'd think we'd need a lot more space than a forum post would permit and far more patience than any party involved really has to offer.
Complex systems that turn on something as idiosyncratic as a human's personality and decision making process are going to be very difficult to describe. So much so, in fact, that the very act of using their constituent label becomes a political gesture; for example, every time someone uses words like "liberal", "conservative", or "progressive, they are effectively making a rhetorical vote as to what those words stand for. This is why political commercials and campaigning in general revolve around these nebulous terms; they give off the appearance of specificity when they are in fact very general. Feminism definitely falls into this category.
My personal political agenda, getting back to your spiel, is not as simple as you claim. When pressed, I would probably identify as a Feminist in most circles but I'd do so with a heavy bit of stipulation, in much the same way I do when asked to why I identify as a Democrat. I've decided that the movement aligns enough with my individual outlook to warrant identification, but how it is people go about making that calculus is hardly universal. Furthermore, practically everything done in the public space can be considered political, so the idea that we should just throw our hands up and say "well we are all just fighting for our agendas!" seems pretty redundant.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
I mean to spin this around to make it seem like the state is discriminating against women, even though women obviously have the choice to not take the children if they don't want them is asinine. This is the only case I'm aware of where one group of people (women) has more rights than another group of people (men) based on sex. The only case of state-institutionalized sexism I'm aware of.
On May 27 2014 00:41 LilClinkin wrote: His only mental disorder that I can gather from reading his manifesto is narcissistic personality disorder, which led to psychopathy in his later years. He was not psychotic or schizophrenic or anti-social or autistic. Please look up the definitions of these things before throwing them around. If you understood their definitions, you'd understand why psychiatrists (I'm not sure if he ever saw one, haven't read his entire manifesto) would not see him as an overly dangerous individual until it was too late.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
On May 27 2014 02:28 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Loving that projection.
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institiunalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Firstly biased child custody laws are not state institutionalised, you made that up. The tender years doctrine, which is what you're referring to, has been discredited and thrown out throughout the western world. Sorry but no.
Secondly they're actually an excellent example of where men have legal equality under the "best interests of the child" doctrine used but where there is instead a social bias which, in spite of legal equality, unfairly discriminates against men.
You think that discrimination is bullshit? That's great! I do too. And fortunately there is a large group of people who if you say "legal equality isn't all it takes to fix social problems, we need to actively act to fight discrimination where we see it and teach people not to discriminate" will absolutely get it.
Great example, good job bringing it up, it's exactly why you need feminism, because despite legal equality men still get discriminated against.
If feminism was effective at dealing with issues like these, there wouldn't be a Men's Rights Movement in the first place.
If MRAs were interested in the actual problems facing men then we'd need a whole new movement to put all the misogynists in.
That's not necessarily true. He was diagnosed as high functioning aspergers which is now under the autism spectrum according to the DSM-V. It's characterized by anti-social disorders, anxiety, depression, and other issues.
[quote]
He's pretty spot on with his judgement of you. Equal for the past 20 years? What world have you been living in? Pushing for unethical rights? I guess it really is unethicial to have equal pay for equal work, a woman's choice to her body regarding abortions (see the attacks on it in Texas, Ohio, and other states), among numerous other issues.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
Go ahead and write them.
There's not really any point, you'll just accuse me of trying to force people into the gulag again. Reread the posts I wrote previously and then respond.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
Yeah those are not the points I was arguing if you read it correctly.
There are some rights that are still discussed under religious pretenses in religion but if you want to abort your baby, you can totally do it in a more progressive state so you still have the rights in NA.
But in terms of having the basic right as men, women's place in the society have been pretty much equalized in the past decades.
Which is one of the reasons modern feminism is tackling problems of gender roles and identity within society, although work is still needed on the legal front too. Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
No, that's infringing personal privacy and become a thought police state and is just a form of brainwashing. In terms of priority, basic freedom of speech and thought predates all gender issues.
lol That's not how it works. If you're being an asshole and I ask you not to be an asshole I am not brainwashing you, nor am I infringing upon your freedom of speech or thought. If you treat women like shit and I call you out on that your freedoms have not been impacted.
That evasion lol
Reflect on yourself: "the way people view women, and men, in society needs work."
And you think by "needs work" I meant re-education camps? Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour, being able to discuss questions of identity more freely, not being pressured to act or live a certain way because of gender and so forth.
Still changing people's brain. No form of education should be made mandatory. All subjects should either go there willingly or being coerced. It should be that as long as you aren't putting someone else in life threatening situations, taking someone's possession without permission, and paying your taxes in time; you should be allowed to do what the fuck you like.
The posts you think you're replying to aren't in any way like the posts I'm writing.
Go ahead and write them.
There's not really any point, you'll just accuse me of trying to force people into the gulag again. Reread the posts I wrote previously and then respond.
Re-read them yourself
" Because I thought I meant things like better sex education, less shaming, people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour,"
people calling out their peers on sexist behaviour = more shaming
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
On May 27 2014 02:45 KwarK wrote: Things are not all fine just because a law is passed, the way people view women, and men, in society needs work.
Then why be a feminist? Why not be a humanist? My suggestion is that the only reason people with poltical agendas subscribe to the ideology of feminism is not the ideology itself but the fact that it has a movement behind it, humanism as an ideology is infinitely more consistent than feminism and tries to basically achieve the same goals, but it doesn't have a big movement behind it so it's simply not interesting to political animals.
They are championing feminism, not necessarily because they agree with the ideology (which you even stated is unclear) but because it's a political apparatus with a movement behind it.
I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
I mean to spin this around to make it seem like the state is discriminating against women, even though women obviously have the choice to not take the children if they don't want them is asinine. This is the only case I'm aware of where one group of people (women) has more rights than another group of people (men) based on sex. The only case of state-institutionalized sexism I'm aware of.
Read any of my responses, the facts you're basing this argument on are in no way true. There is no legal favouritism of the mother over the father, rather it is a social prejudice.
On May 27 2014 03:04 KwarK wrote: [quote] I see no conflict between feminism and humanism, nor do I believe there is any reason why feminism can't deal with the problems facing men. The reason I subscribe to feminism is because feminism is the movement which did the intellectual legwork and has the framework to address these problems because feminists were the ones asking the questions about gender.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote: Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive.
We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence.
Right, so you are not subscribing to the ideology of feminism but simply following the political movement behind it. How hypocritical then to hold primarily humanist values and subscribe to an ideology which in it's very name is divisive (feminism)?
If feminism didn't have a political movement you would be a humanist, not a feminist. It's really that simple.
I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote: Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive.
We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence.
And I wasn't quoting anyone. That's the difference.
On May 27 2014 03:11 KwarK wrote: [quote] I'm really not in any way upset that the way I label my views is upsetting you. Nor do I accept your point that I'm not following feminism but rather humanism, I don't see the conflict between the two, they overlap.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
On May 27 2014 03:39 Xiphos wrote: Technically men weren't "favored" <1900.
Men had to go fight in the war, go out to farm, do all sort of dirty and risky jobs just to keep their wives and kids alive.
We're talking about the presumption of child custody and which side the law favoured. You need to read the whole post, not just skim through until you think someone is being mean to men and then leap to their defence.
And I wasn't quoting anyone. That's the difference.
I think he is pointing out that its better to stay on topic, rather than make broad, overly generalized statements about the life of an entire demographic in a specific period of time. If the topic is focused down to child custody, it doesn't help the discussion to then move it to discussing men's lives through the entire pre-1900.
They do for the most part except that there is a very relevant difference. Humanism focuses on people as individuals (equal opportunities for every individual), whereas feminism in it's very name focuses on a group of people and divides people by arbitrary lines (male - female).
That is not something consistent with humanism.
Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with you guys.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being ever discriminated against and face similar problems as women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebag saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify as a member of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
On May 27 2014 03:16 KwarK wrote: [quote] Ah, this is where you're confused. Feminism is not solely concerned with women.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29]
Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
I would argue "identification" as voicing support for a certain agenda. Which does make a marginal difference for each person that identifies or does not.
On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination:
The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29]
Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination:
The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29]
Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
Right. But I wouldn't identify as a Republican because of the Tea Party/RINO nonsense.
On May 27 2014 03:21 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
I would argue "identification" as voicing support for a certain agenda. Which does make a marginal difference for each person that identifies or does not.
Feminists are the people talking about the role of gender in society and the issues it causes. If I give a shit that male victims can't talk about domestic abuse because it doesn't fit the traditional narrative and they're afraid of the stigma and I want a group that also gives a shit then that's like minded feminists. I don't agree with all of them, probably not even a majority of them, but they're the ones having the debate about gender.
On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote: I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue.
On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote: I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue.
While I was still at university myself and the feminist society had a colossal facepalm at this tumblr which explains, in depth, how men are oppressing women with their legs and why it's necessary to take secret photos of them and post them online. One part funny, the other creepy. http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/
Then it's own name is an oxymoron and it definitely isn't the impression I get from most feminists. I've never seen a feminist adress the biased child custody laws which is the only example of state-institutionalized sexual discrimination I'm actually aware of.
Err yes we have. Many of us also expressed discontent at child custody cases because it also assumes that women are natural mothers and should be the ones raising the kids.
It doesn't actually assume that, because up until the 1950's in the UK where society was considerably more male-dominated than it is now the situation was actually reversed and if the man wanted the children he got them on the basis that... he was man.
Also completely untrue. Back then the tender years doctrine dominated which taught that the woman was needed as the natural biological caregiver to care for the children. While I appreciate your efforts your facts are completely backwards.
Now in the 19th Century you'd have been right, men got the kids if they wanted them. Then an early 'feminist' who lost her kids like that and was shit at feminism thought "this is bullshit that men get the kids by default" and instead of reaching the sensible conclusion of the best interests of the child instead went with "let's make it equally unfair, but so women get them, not men". This somehow took off and means that in the 1950s men were systematically legally discriminated against.
And now you know!
Yeah and up until the 1950's the situation was reversed. That's exactly what I said to a T.
No, you said in the 1950s the man could have the child because he was the man. That is not true. In the 1850s the man could have them because he was the man. In the 1950s the woman got them because she was the woman. The situation was not reversed in the 1950s but rather in the late 19th C. You completely failed to read my posts. I'll spell it out.
<1900 man is favoured 1900-1980ish woman is favoured 1980ish to present day legal equality but social predjudice
What you have written is 1950 man is legally favoured (WRONG) 2014 woman is legally favoured (WRONG)
Everything you think you know about this subject is factually wrong. I'm sorry. Man was not favoured in 1950. There was no switch in 1950. There is no legal discrimination in the present day. Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Alright I stand corrected, but my point was that men are still being discriminated against when it comes to child custody. You are right that it's based on social prejudice, but isn't it still just as relevant regardless?
YES!!! Exactly! Despite legal equality men are still getting fucked over by social prejudice and it sucks balls! We're on exactly the same page here! And any feminist worth anything will absolutely understand if you go "look, this is gender discrimination which has continued despite legal equality and needs to be called out, when a shitty mother gets the children over a good father that needs calling out in exactly the same way as when a shitty man gets a job over a good woman".
This shit is exactly why feminism as a movement is important and why it continues. Because legal equality doesn't fix all problems when society still has deep rooted prejudices against genders and rigid ideas about gender roles.
Right but see, it all sounds well and good when I discuss this topic with people on this forum, because it's generally possible here to have a both civil and reasonable discussion with the people on here.
But then you look at the masses (I'm talking hundreds of thousands) of tumblr-feminists and they will flatout deny that men are being discriminated against and face similar problems than women in terms of societal pressures and discrimination.
Everything you say makes sense and I would be a feminist if I thought people like you were the majority, but I just don't see that, most of the time I hear or read about feminism it's about tumblr-feminists whining and complaining about petty issues. Miley cyrus being censored. some douchebage saying something inappropiate, trivial nonsense like that.
How am I to self-identify of part of that group? These people in my eyes are partially insane, not reasonable like most of the feminists on this forum.
How you identify doesn't make a single bit of difference, it's not a club, there are no badges or clubhouses. I brand my own beliefs as within the broad umbrella of feminism but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything every idiot who identifies with it says. When people who identify as feminists say stupid things like how women shouldn't want to be housewives then I mentally strip them of their membership and badge because if you're shaming women for making certain life choices then, in my opinion, you deserve to be kicked out of the clubhouse. But it's just an intellectual framework, how you define yourself makes no difference.
You are right, but see the problem is that the moment I say "I'm not a feminist." even though my personal beliefs are identical to most of what Feminism stands for (with very relevant and important exceptions at least to me personally) radical feminists will immediately call me a mysognist.
I always had some sympathy for feminism, because I saw it's good intentions and see a purpose in that, but radical feminists actually make feminism look more like a "hategroup" and that's not something I want to be associated with.
I mean you are right, it's not a club with badges or a clubhouse so it shouldn't matter, but in a way it does because the moment you say "I'm not a feminist" you are almost immediately met with vitriolic and generally hateful comments and in the minds of so many people (not just women) assumed to be a mysoginist.
On May 27 2014 03:59 Plansix wrote: I would argue that you should never judge a member of a group by the internet presence of that group. The tumblr-feminists that you will to be exposed to are by nature are going to be the loudest and most "provocative" of that specific group. Its unfair to judge in that group by it's most vocal section. You need to try to understand the nuances of the group and see what it's more rational members are like. It can be compared(though not perfectly) judging all Christians by taking most extreme, violent members of that group and assuming all Christians are like that. Or any other religion with a violent sub section.
By that token, the members of the feminist(or any other group) need to be better at calling out the offensive nature of their most fanatical subsections. They should avoid automatically defending any "feminist" who has detractors or people who find that specific feminist offensive.
Alright I'll concede. This second paragraph is probably what I would like to argue.
While I was still at university myself and the feminist society had a colossal facepalm at this tumblr which explains, in depth, how men are oppressing women with their legs and why it's necessary to take secret photos of them and post them online. One part funny, the other creepy. http://movethefuckoverbro.tumblr.com/
Holy shit, that thing is next level trash. Its to real to be a joke.
Problem is that todays feminism is highly subject to group dynamics where people in the middle of the group try to be a bit more "feminist"than the others to show they are slightly more progressive and "better" than the rest. So the whole group slowly moves to an more extreme end, and if you look today a lot of feminists (that is my impression) are batshit insane and far away from wanting "equality". There is no dynamic that calls them out on their bullshit, they even invented terms like "mansplaining" and "privilege checking" to prevent themselves from criticism that comes from the outside or inside.
People pointed out that the craziest are usually the loudest but that means that they move the goalposts and guide the general direction the movement walkts towards too. Feminists are really bad on "counteracting" these people, if they counteract them at all.
On May 27 2014 03:55 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: Add the notion (perpetuated by radfems, especially in the late 90's, and more recently, questioning this story on Huff Post by the tumblr crowd) that men can't be raped, and the legal loopholes in the Violence Against Women Act for more cases of male discrimination:
The 2013 reauthorization added a non-discrimination provision that prohibits organizations receiving funding under the Act from discriminating on the basis of sex, although the law allows an exception for "sex segregation or sex-specific programming" when it is deemed to be "necessary to the essential operations of a program."[28] Jan Brown, the Founder and Executive Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women contends that the Act is not sufficient to ensure equal access to services.[29]
Kwark, I agree with nearly every word you say, but ultimately, like Slix says, the reason I can't subscribe to feminism, even though I share your viewpoints, is that I don't want to identify with the more vocal, more radical group.
You can still be a libertarian/conservative without being part of /pol/
/pol/ is an amazing board because everyone is allowed to talk on a 0 ground policy, also a lot of diverse people here with differrent opinions. If you talk shit you get called out. But even here it is apparent that people buy into the group dynamics i mentioned above it works the same way just the other directon and most people arent aware of that.
On May 27 2014 04:18 Shiragaku wrote: Why am I not surprised Sokrates would say something like that?
Not true? Tumblr feminism and pol are so similar in so many ways. It is really interesting to watch, same principles apply to both extreme groups. If you want to learn about people you have to go there. And out of the 90% trashposting you ll find some good ones.
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".
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.
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 04:20 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 04:20 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 04:20 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.
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 04:20 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 04:20 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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
So what's the connection? How does the fact that he blamed women for not giving him a chance relate to feminism?
I just don't understand how he stabbed all three of his roommates to death. I mean 3 of them couldn't overpower one guy? Did they not even try? It's so frustrating. It seems like those three at least had a chance.
On May 27 2014 06:05 Sniperdadx wrote: I just don't understand how he stabbed all three of his roommates to death. I mean 3 of them couldn't overpower one guy? Did they not even try? It's so frustrating. It seems like those three at least had a chance.
they could have been sleeping or something, we don't know any details really on the stabbings. Although if he did it at 9:30PM on a Friday seems unlikely they would be sleeping...
That's what I'm saying it's unlikely they were asleep. But I can't just imagine two people standing there watching while a person is right in front of you being stabbed to death.
For example, one's in his bed and gets stabbed. Second one comes from the bathroom to see what's up, gets stabbed. Then he waits for the third one to get home and takes him out as well.
I found it interesting that, in an article about this, it was said that this murderer subscribed to SquattinCassanova's Youtube. Some TL denizens may remember he was a perpetual presence in the infamous and now locked PUA thread. The whole toxic perspective of the more cynical PUAs permeated this entitled, deluded lunatic's ravings (I'm talking about the killer, not SquattinCassanova).
Apologies if someone already pointed this out or discussed it.
On May 27 2014 06:22 sc4k wrote: I found it interesting that, in an article about this, it was said that this murderer subscribed to SquattinCassanova's Youtube. Some TL denizens may remember he was a perpetual presence in the infamous and now locked PUA thread. The whole toxic perspective of the more cynical PUAs permeated this entitled, deluded lunatic's ravings (I'm talking about the killer, not SquattinCassanova).
Apologies if someone already pointed this out or discussed it.
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.
Uhm.. continue reading?
Yeah that doesn't explain how his argument is an ad hominem. Are you sure you know what an ad hominem argument is?
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.
Uhm.. continue reading?
Yeah that doesn't explain how his argument is an ad hominem. Are you sure you know what an ad hominem argument is?
On May 27 2014 06:05 Sniperdadx wrote: I just don't understand how he stabbed all three of his roommates to death. I mean 3 of them couldn't overpower one guy? Did they not even try? It's so frustrating. It seems like those three at least had a chance.
they could have been sleeping or something, we don't know any details really on the stabbings. Although if he did it at 9:30PM on a Friday seems unlikely they would be sleeping...
Purely speculation but it is entirely possible he could have drugged them as well. Made dinner for them, gave them some drugged beers, etc. Otherwise yeah, I don't see how it happens.
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
wow that thread. halfway down (reply 69) when he responds to a guy offering legit advice and refers to himself in the 3rd person...
He was too blinded by his own ideologies to even consider accepting advice from anyone. Sad.
this is fucking chilling. if any of those guys would have actually reached out (not that I would expect people to but what if someone had) and pulled him out of that dark place he was in... my schoolmates would still be here.
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
wow that thread. halfway down (reply 69) when he responds to a guy offering legit advice and refers to himself in the 3rd person...
He was too blinded by his own ideologies to even consider accepting advice from anyone. Sad.
this is fucking chilling. if any of those guys would have actually reached out (not that I would expect people to but what if someone had) and pulled him out of that dark place he was in... my schoolmates would still be here.
Didn't people try and give him advice multiple times and his own delusions of grandeur made sure none of that advice ever sank in? I can tell you how to change to be a better person, not be a personality vacuum, and maybe meet some ladies, but if you think you're perfect and god's gift to everything than you're not going to listen to a single word I say.
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
wow that thread. halfway down (reply 69) when he responds to a guy offering legit advice and refers to himself in the 3rd person...
He was too blinded by his own ideologies to even consider accepting advice from anyone. Sad.
"Never insult the style of Elliot Rodger. I'm the most stylish person in the world. Just look at my profile pic. That's just one of my fabulous outfits. The sweater I'm wearing in the picture is $500 from Neiman Marcus."
rofl....
"strong serial killer vibes in that video..." -heych1995
"in b4 bodies of girls are discovered buried in that park" -nextyearshark
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
wow that thread. halfway down (reply 69) when he responds to a guy offering legit advice and refers to himself in the 3rd person...
He was too blinded by his own ideologies to even consider accepting advice from anyone. Sad.
"Never insult the style of Elliot Rodger. I'm the most stylish person in the world. Just look at my profile pic. That's just one of my fabulous outfits. The sweater I'm wearing in the picture is $500 from Neiman Marcus."
rofl....
"strong serial killer vibes in that video..." -heych1995
"in b4 bodies of girls are discovered buried in that park" -nextyearshark
They called it.
Well arguably maybe they were the ones who planted the seed in his disturbed mind. Check this article out, he was trying to emulate Patrick bateman and it's pretty obvious if you watch a couple of his videos and read his posts.
Does anyone know for sure how this clearly unstable kid got a gun? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have cleared a background check.
edit-
As for the 22-year-old's ability to buy three guns and hundreds of rounds of ammo, Brown said, "During the course of his interaction with mental health professionals, he apparently had never been either institutionalized or committed for an involuntarily hold of any kind. And those are the two triggers that actually would have made him a prohibited person in terms of a fire arms purchase. So he was able, sadly, to obtain those three firearms."
damn, so what can be done in the future to help prevent these people from getting weapons?
His dad discovered his YouTube channel, assigned police to look at his psyche, police said that everything is okay with him, then hours before his deeds, he posted his final video, people looked at it, didn't do shit about to detain him.
That last video is sort of the final cry for help "Okay looks like nobody really cares about me anyways to correct me, I have to go with it."
So the problem lies within the external forces just as much as he is to blame.
Yea there is a big problem, or rather, lack of understanding and dealing with mentally disturbed people in this culture.
It's arguably worse than cancer yet there isn't much awareness or teaching going on about basic psychology and human behaviors, or traumas of the past.
If you read into this kid's story you can tell he is severely messed up. And obviously his family could have been doing more but they probably didn't care enough. Raised by narcissists etc.
On May 27 2014 10:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Yea there is a big problem, or rather, lack of understanding and dealing with mentally disturbed people in this culture.
It's arguably worse than cancer yet there isn't much awareness or teaching going on about basic psychology and human behaviors, or traumas of the past.
If you read into this kid's story you can tell he is severely messed up. And obviously his family could have been doing more but they probably didn't care enough. Raised by narcissists etc.
I have no idea how the room mates didn't pick up anything, he doesn't seem to be the guy that did his part on the house chores
I assume if you get stabbed by surprise on a key part (neck, gut, back), there is nothing you can do to defend yourself, even against a 145 pound guy.
Another huge problem is how the society is hating on men who learn how to get into relationship with girls through training and techniques by saying how it is "creepy". I'm talking about the PUA stuff.
The kid is too much of a "traditionalist" in a sense that before feminism's takeover, it has always been that if you are wealthy, you can get ladies.
But afterward, women are aspiring a lot more from a men, that's how "PUA" came to be in order to adapt to that system.
His mindset was stuck in time and couldn't accept it. Modernized women in the west don't exactly care much about money (they still do but not as much), they care about how smooth a men is at leading. He don't have the physique or the appropriate conversational topics (he is a terrific writer and conversationalist but in the wrong subject) to be a leader. And his mindset is way too angry at the world which completely destroys the smooth department.
His blame toward men that evolved with the time drove him to madness.
No you shouldn't shame another men for learning any techniques, instead you should encourage him because instead of getting stuck in time in the pre-feminism movement and getting angry at it, he is moving on with the time to use the current psychology of the women to his advantage.
On May 27 2014 10:24 MarlieChurphy wrote: Yea there is a big problem, or rather, lack of understanding and dealing with mentally disturbed people in this culture.
It's arguably worse than cancer yet there isn't much awareness or teaching going on about basic psychology and human behaviors, or traumas of the past.
If you read into this kid's story you can tell he is severely messed up. And obviously his family could have been doing more but they probably didn't care enough. Raised by narcissists etc.
I have no idea how the room mates didn't pick up anything, he doesn't seem to be the guy that did his part on the house chores
I assume if you get stabbed by surprise on a key part (neck, gut, back), there is nothing you can do to defend yourself, even against a 145 pound guy.
Apparently, one of them had tried to move out, but couldn't due to financial reasons or something. Pretty sad stuff.
On May 27 2014 10:39 Xiphos wrote: Another huge problem is how the society is hating on men who learn how to get into relationship with girls through training and techniques by saying how it is "creepy". I'm talking about the PUA stuff.
The kid is too much of a "traditionalist" in a sense that before feminism's takeover, it has always been that if you are wealthy, you can get ladies.
But afterward, women are aspiring a lot more from a men, that's how "PUA" came to be in order to adapt to that system.
His mindset was stuck in time and couldn't accept it. Modernized women in the west don't exactly care much about money (they still do but not as much), they care about how smooth a men is at leading. He don't have the physique or the appropriate conversational topics (he is a terrific writer and conversationalist but in the wrong subject) to be a leader. And his mindset is way too angry at the world which completely destroys the smooth department.
His blame toward men that evolved with the time drove him to madness.
No you shouldn't shame another men for learning any techniques, instead you should encourage him because instead of getting stuck in time in the pre-feminism movement and getting angry at it, he is moving on with the time to use the current psychology of the women to his advantage.
I think some of the problems with a lot of PUA type stuff is
1. A lot of it comes from a pretty misogynistic place. 2. It encourages guys to 'play a role' rather than just improve themselves or find someone who appreciates who they are. 3. It furthers psychological misgivings about courting that are apparently destructive to individuals and society at large.
To be fair not all of it comes from this angle, but more than enough to besmirch the entirety of the subject to the general public.
If someone is trying to 'hook up' with 'lots of' chicks without the intention of pursuing a relationship of value, the guy is pretty much a creep.
Another case of bullying and rejection from society causing mentally unstable people to go on a killing spree. It's really sad. Also the fact that he was posting his intentions publicly and nothing was done is really pathetic.
Xiphos don't degenerate this topic into anything other than him being mentally unstable and not getting proper treatment. It doesn't matter what he subscribed to or disagreed with, being unstable warps his perception of whatever it is. Video games, PUA, society, politics, whatever. It's all just a superficial topical argument for the uninformed.
Besides, this kid and those pua communities are just as confused as anyone else who simply doesn't understand basic psychology and human behaviors. These stereotypical things that women are attracted to are mostly just nonsense. This kid had no status, was super shy weird and awkward, and was mentally unstable as fuck, jealous and envious of everything, and had no idea what a male female relationship was like at all since his mom neglected or abandoned him. The only girl he could even hope to get would be is an equally messed up chick at at alanon meeting or something.
Even if this guy looked like brad pitt, his personality is repulsive to anyone, and obviously weighs more on random encounters of people he meets. He needed treatment and probably meds.
Not enough people know anything about how to see warning signs, how to manage, how to get people to the proper avenues, even authorities aren't trained on these things. People just knee jerk react with anger and aggression.
Here's a shocker of an excerpt I found in this sicko's little 'manifesto' (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf)
"How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves. I deserve it more. I tried not to believe his foul words, but they were already said, and it was hard to erase from my mind. If this is actually true, if this ugly black filth was able to have sex with a blonde white girl at the age of thirteen while I’ve had to suffer virginity all my life, then this just proves how ridiculous the female gender is. They would give themselves to this filthy scum, but they reject ME? The injustice!
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized."
I watched most of his videos on youtube and the one that isn't on there anymore on CNN's site. All his videos are the same theme, lonely, narcissism, jealousy, anger, frustration, lack of insight, feelings of neglect and isolation, miscanthropy towards everyone for not seeing his problems and helping him, etc. Guy needed help and was good at hiding his issues or people weren't giving him proper treatment.
On May 27 2014 10:39 Xiphos wrote: Another huge problem is how the society is hating on men who learn how to get into relationship with girls through training and techniques by saying how it is "creepy". I'm talking about the PUA stuff.
The kid is too much of a "traditionalist" in a sense that before feminism's takeover, it has always been that if you are wealthy, you can get ladies.
But afterward, women are aspiring a lot more from a men, that's how "PUA" came to be in order to adapt to that system.
His mindset was stuck in time and couldn't accept it. Modernized women in the west don't exactly care much about money (they still do but not as much), they care about how smooth a men is at leading. He don't have the physique or the appropriate conversational topics (he is a terrific writer and conversationalist but in the wrong subject) to be a leader. And his mindset is way too angry at the world which completely destroys the smooth department.
His blame toward men that evolved with the time drove him to madness.
No you shouldn't shame another men for learning any techniques, instead you should encourage him because instead of getting stuck in time in the pre-feminism movement and getting angry at it, he is moving on with the time to use the current psychology of the women to his advantage.
I think some of the problems with a lot of PUA type stuff is
1. A lot of it comes from a pretty misogynistic place. 2. It encourages guys to 'play a role' rather than just improve themselves or find someone who appreciates who they are. 3. It furthers psychological misgivings about courting that are apparently destructive to individuals and society at large.
To be fair not all of it comes from this angle, but more than enough to besmirch the entirety of the subject to the general public.
If someone is trying to 'hook up' with 'lots of' chicks without the intention of pursuing a relationship of value, the guy is pretty much a creep.
Men like to have sex with attractive women. And not a lot men who learned PUA type stuff is to actually increase his chances with the women of his dream but thought that he can't offer much in terms of charms and charisma. Only a few men in the tiniest fraction is make banging chicks a "job" to do.
A lot of men go to PUA because they are misogynistic as they couldn't understand the psychology of a women and get frustrated by their lack of understanding. But PUA teaches the mind of a girl so people came out of it with a more balanced view.
Women likes those "role" those men plays because it is an interesting persona. The more you "roleplay", you become that role and appears genuine. And you can't just remain "who you are" but rather it should be "who is your best version of yourself" to constant seek improvement on yourself. That's kind of like saying a homeless person should stay who they are. And those "role" that one chooses IS their best version of attraction so that's actively improving themselves.
On your third point, that's kind of what happened to Elliot in that his mind still reconcile with the thinking process of a girl but Elliot is mentally illed with Asperger's syndrome and extreme sociopathic behavior by even convincing the cops that he is sane. So this is an exception case for him personally.
I think PUA is all about the mindset of the person performing. Some would just want to get laid without getting into a relationship. There is nothing wrong with that, women want to get laid as well without those restrictions. As matter of fact, the rise of feminism have increased more women to get into the mindset that they don't exactly need to be in a relationship, they can be independent but still humans are evolved/designed to have sex. Both gender have urges and feminism helps the decrease of gender codependency.
On May 27 2014 11:03 MarlieChurphy wrote: Xiphos don't degenerate this topic into anything other than him being mentally unstable and not getting proper treatment. It doesn't matter what he subscribed to or disagreed with, being unstable warps his perception of whatever it is. Video games, PUA, society, politics, whatever. It's all just a superficial topical argument for the uninformed.
Besides, this kid and those pua communities are just as confused as anyone else who simply doesn't understand basic psychology and human behaviors. These stereotypical things that women are attracted to are mostly just nonsense. This kid had no status, was super shy weird and awkward, and was mentally unstable as fuck, jealous and envious of everything, and had no idea what a male female relationship was like at all since his mom neglected or abandoned him. The only girl he could even hope to get would be is an equally messed up chick at at alanon meeting or something.
Even if this guy looked like brad pitt, his personality is repulsive to anyone, and obviously weighs more on random encounters of people he meets. He needed treatment and probably meds.
Not enough people know anything about how to see warning signs, how to manage, how to get people to the proper avenues, even authorities aren't trained on these things. People just knee jerk react with anger and aggression.
People like this are clearly troubled and the majority has no idea how to react as they weren't taught how to deal with stuff like this.
How would you say one should react to stuff like this? I mean, it seemed the people in your examples couldn't be reasoned with. (How) would you tell the person in the bus to stop? Or the person that accuses you of stalking to go away? Who would you call to get them help?
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
Or company A that copying the management strategy of company B because company B is generating more profits. "Stop faking it, company A! We all know that you are just a little sore loser with all those bankruptcy! There is no need to try harder!"
If a person is trying to get what he wants in a legal manner, who are you to judge him?
On May 27 2014 11:03 MarlieChurphy wrote: Xiphos don't degenerate this topic into anything other than him being mentally unstable and not getting proper treatment. It doesn't matter what he subscribed to or disagreed with, being unstable warps his perception of whatever it is. Video games, PUA, society, politics, whatever. It's all just a superficial topical argument for the uninformed.
Besides, this kid and those pua communities are just as confused as anyone else who simply doesn't understand basic psychology and human behaviors. These stereotypical things that women are attracted to are mostly just nonsense. This kid had no status, was super shy weird and awkward, and was mentally unstable as fuck, jealous and envious of everything, and had no idea what a male female relationship was like at all since his mom neglected or abandoned him. The only girl he could even hope to get would be is an equally messed up chick at at alanon meeting or something.
Even if this guy looked like brad pitt, his personality is repulsive to anyone, and obviously weighs more on random encounters of people he meets. He needed treatment and probably meds.
Not enough people know anything about how to see warning signs, how to manage, how to get people to the proper avenues, even authorities aren't trained on these things. People just knee jerk react with anger and aggression.
People like this are clearly troubled and the majority has no idea how to react as they weren't taught how to deal with stuff like this.
How would you say one should react to stuff like this? I mean, it seemed the people in your examples couldn't be reasoned with. (How) would you tell the person in the bus to stop? Or the person that accuses you of stalking to go away? Who would you call to get them help?
That I don't know. Me personally might take time out of my day to follow the person or get their information so it could be given to the proper authorities. There is a network out there for everything, it just needs to be shown to some people since they clearly aren't capable or don't know how to get help themselves.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
Ummm, I've never had to fake a character for anything so I'm not quite sure what you're on about. You don't have to fake shit, you just do it. I don't play roles, life isn't a TV show.
If you actually want to go to a new Italian joint and watch a movie about god then cool beans. If you're just saying that to sound interesting and get laid you're fake as fuck and not actually improving yourself in any manner. There's a massive difference there.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
Or company A that copying the management strategy of company B because company B is generating more profits. "Stop faking it, company A! We all know that you are just a little sore loser with all those bankruptcy! There is no need to try harder!"
If a person is trying to get what he wants in a legal manner, who are you to judge him?
You understand the difference between real life and pretend right? If company A is a better company and your company sucks its logical to want to take on a better business structure. That actually improves your company. PRETENDING to be like company A for image purposes while not actually wanting to improve makes you pathetic.
I can judge whoever I want. If someone is fake I'll call them out on it, its generally pretty easy to see through. How about genuinely trying to be a better person and not just pretending to be a better person? The first way makes the world a better place the second is just pathetic.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof/pretentious. And nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
Ummm, I've never had to fake a character for anything so I'm not quite sure what you're on about. You don't have to fake shit, you just do it. I don't play roles, life isn't a TV show.
If you actually want to go to a new Italian joint and watch a movie about god then cool beans. If you're just saying that to sound interesting and get laid you're fake as fuck and not actually improving yourself in any manner. There's a massive difference there.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
Or company A that copying the management strategy of company B because company B is generating more profits. "Stop faking it, company A! We all know that you are just a little sore loser with all those bankruptcy! There is no need to try harder!"
If a person is trying to get what he wants in a legal manner, who are you to judge him?
You understand the difference between real life and pretend right? If company A is a better company and your company sucks its logical to want to take on a better business structure. That actually improves your company. PRETENDING to be like company A for image purposes while not actually wanting to improve makes you pathetic.
I can judge whoever I want. If someone is fake I'll call them out on it, its generally pretty easy to see through. How about genuinely trying to be a better person and not just pretending to be a better person? The first way makes the world a better place the second is just pathetic.
See there with the shaming on people trying to improve. Why are you putting people down bro?
The problem has nothing to do with his inability to attract girls, that's just his warped perception or projection of his underlying problem due to his narcissism and lack of insight.
The guy was lost and needed serious mental network and probably meds. Then after he becomes stable and is able to meet in groups with other people and talk about these things he talks about in his video, then he can work on the relationship/women frustration.
I mean, he could have simply hired an escort if that's what it was really about.
PS- I read something recently about what guys are girls fear the most when online dating.
For guys it's that the chick is fat. For girls it's that the guy is a psychopath.
This guy is a psychopath. Nothing he can do to correct that other than years of therapy and meds.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
Ummm, I've never had to fake a character for anything so I'm not quite sure what you're on about. You don't have to fake shit, you just do it. I don't play roles, life isn't a TV show.
If you actually want to go to a new Italian joint and watch a movie about god then cool beans. If you're just saying that to sound interesting and get laid you're fake as fuck and not actually improving yourself in any manner. There's a massive difference there.
Yay for edits
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
Or company A that copying the management strategy of company B because company B is generating more profits. "Stop faking it, company A! We all know that you are just a little sore loser with all those bankruptcy! There is no need to try harder!"
If a person is trying to get what he wants in a legal manner, who are you to judge him?
You understand the difference between real life and pretend right? If company A is a better company and your company sucks its logical to want to take on a better business structure. That actually improves your company. PRETENDING to be like company A for image purposes while not actually wanting to improve makes you pathetic.
I can judge whoever I want. If someone is fake I'll call them out on it, its generally pretty easy to see through. How about genuinely trying to be a better person and not just pretending to be a better person? The first way makes the world a better place the second is just pathetic.
See there with the shaming on people trying to improve. Why are you putting people down bro?
Pretending to be someone else isn't improving. And again, I'll shame who I like to shame and pretending to be someone else, reading off some bullshit queue cards from some jackass in a fluffy hat is at the top of my list.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
You can't be a better person if you don't know what "better" is.
To bring down the terms simpler for you. Let's talk about SC players. When your first started playing the game, you can't win so you write about it on TL.net Then people tell you to watch Jaedong's replays and try to emulate him. Same concept, I hope this simpler analogy can help you to understand the concept better.
On May 27 2014 11:51 MarlieChurphy wrote: The problem has nothing to do with his inability to attract girls, that's just his warped perception or projection of his underlying problem due to his narcissism and lack of insight.
The guy was lost and needed serious mental network and probably meds. Then after he becomes stable and is able to meet in groups with other people and talk about these things he talks about in his video, then he can work on the relationship/women frustration.
I mean, he could have simply hired an escort if that's what it was really about.
Agreed. I remember at one point in his manifesto he mentions prostitution being "fake because you have to pay for it" or something along those lines.
So clearly his issues weren't JUST about having sex like he sort of seems to imply through some of the videos.
I mean he was driving hours and hours to Arizona spending hundreds on lottery tickets near the end...could easily have driven to Vegas and been done with his virginity in a day if that was really all it was about for him.
On May 27 2014 11:51 MarlieChurphy wrote: The problem has nothing to do with his inability to attract girls, that's just his warped perception or projection of his underlying problem due to his narcissism and lack of insight.
The guy was lost and needed serious mental network and probably meds. Then after he becomes stable and is able to meet in groups with other people and talk about these things he talks about in his video, then he can work on the relationship/women frustration.
I mean, he could have simply hired an escort if that's what it was really about.
Agreed. I remember at one point in his manifesto he mentions prostitution being "fake because you have to pay for it" or something along those lines.
So clearly his issues weren't JUST about having sex like he sort of seems to imply through some of the videos.
I mean he was driving hours and hours to Arizona spending hundreds on lottery tickets near the end...could easily have driven to Vegas and been done with his virginity in a day if that was really all it was about for him.
Where did you see this (and read that)? I think someone removed a number of his YT videos.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
[QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:54 Xiphos wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:48 OuchyDathurts wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement. [/QUOTE]
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video. [/QUOTE]
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
[QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.[/QUOTE]
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement. [/QUOTE]
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you. [/QUOTE]
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
[QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote: [QUOTE]On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement. [/QUOTE]
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
[url=http://youtu.be/zBvaVWdJRQM]http://youtu.be/zBvaVWdJRQM[/url][/QUOTE] You can't be a better person if you don't know what "better" is.
To bring down the terms simpler for you. Let's talk about SC players. When your first started playing the game, you can't win so you write about it on TL.net Then people tell you to watch Jaedong's replays and try to emulate him. Same concept, I hope this simpler analogy can help you to understand the concept better. [/QUOTE]
Maybe if you have a mental condition you don't know what better is. Most people should be able to spot someone with better qualities than themselves. Tim is a really nice guy, Fred is very helpful, Greg is very wise for his age. Those guys all have better traits, we know they're better because we're objective and because we can reflect upon yourselves and our actions and notice the difference between us and them.
Well, to be fair I've played 2 1v1 games of SC2 ever and just did whatever. But emulation isn't improvement. You're just acting different. I can try and do what jaedong does and that's super. But I'm really not a better player, I just know how to follow the queue cards in one specific scenario. If I don't actually think through every single step to understand why JD does X in Y situation, why Z is better than A in this scenario, etc I'm not getting any better. There's a difference.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
You don't have to fake it if you know the correct direction to improve.
However most men want to have some empirical evidence of what methods work and what doesn't. So looking at examples and copying example is the best option to learn mistakes from other people and emulating their success. It might not necessarily work for you so you look further into models and well documentated work to try something else and then eventually you find the method that works best for you by either finding the golden ticket or by amalgamating those knowledge learned from the professionals.
The general success to any field will always be formulastic and calculable. As long as you able to gather all the necessary variables, condition, and factors, you should certainly succeed in it and there are models to follow. I personally never rush into something if I didn't know the statistics of the success beforehand.
And regarding this: "Well, to be fair I've played 2 1v1 games of SC2 ever and just did whatever. But emulation isn't improvement. You're just acting different. I can try and do what jaedong does and that's super. But I'm really not a better player, I just know how to follow the queue cards in one specific scenario. If I don't actually think through every single step to understand why JD does X in Y situation, why Z is better than A in this scenario, etc I'm not getting any better. There's a difference."
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
On May 27 2014 11:51 MarlieChurphy wrote: The problem has nothing to do with his inability to attract girls, that's just his warped perception or projection of his underlying problem due to his narcissism and lack of insight.
The guy was lost and needed serious mental network and probably meds. Then after he becomes stable and is able to meet in groups with other people and talk about these things he talks about in his video, then he can work on the relationship/women frustration.
I mean, he could have simply hired an escort if that's what it was really about.
Agreed. I remember at one point in his manifesto he mentions prostitution being "fake because you have to pay for it" or something along those lines.
So clearly his issues weren't JUST about having sex like he sort of seems to imply through some of the videos.
I mean he was driving hours and hours to Arizona spending hundreds on lottery tickets near the end...could easily have driven to Vegas and been done with his virginity in a day if that was really all it was about for him.
Where did you see this (and read that)? I think someone removed a number of his YT videos.
Xiphos self-improvement is sold as a product. Part of selling it as a product is making the consumer assume that they are flawed. If you buy into the values self-improvement gurus tell as well as the way they ideologically reconstruct your interpretation of the world you are at there mercy to adopt their viewpoints of what you are and what you should be. That's why we have so many dumb nerds going to the gym trying to get buff, buying expensive clothing, and paying money for PUA bootcamps. It is an industry that feeds off that which perceives itself as weak and pretends to offer a simple solution to all life's woes. Trust me the day I rid myself of self-help gurus I began to feel much more empowered and in control of my life. It can be addicting and comforting to consume there rhetoric but the way they portray the world is simply not true no matter how much they have conditioned themselves to believe it.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
You don't have to fake it if you know the correct direction to improve.
However most men want to have some empirical evidence of what methods work and what doesn't. So looking at examples and copying example is the best option to learn mistakes from other people and emulating their success. It might not necessarily work for you so you look further into models and well documentated work to try something else and then eventually you find the method that works best for you by either finding the golden ticket or by amalgamating those knowledge learned from the professionals.
The general success to any field will always be formulastic and calculable. As long as you able to gather all the necessary variables, condition, and factors, you should certainly succeed in it and there are models to follow. I personally never rush into something if I didn't know the statistics of the success beforehand.
Well I have no idea wtf happened to the quote in the above post.
If you're into evidence you should be able to see the evidence with your own eyes, there aren't secrets, you don't need a kabal of jackasses to tell you how. If you're always calculating things before doing them you're not living life (a turn off for females btw). What girls like is plain a day and pretending to be someone who you aren't to get a chick I find sad. Be confident, be funny, be enjoyable to be around. Girls are more forgiving than men in the looks department. If a chick wants a rich guy you don't want her to begin with. Don't be beta as fuck (like the killer), don't whine, don't mope, don't be a bitch. Be spontaneous, be sweet sometimes, don't be clingy, don't be needy. If you're scared of rejection go to a bar and swing for the fucking fences. Go find the hottest fucking chick you can and give it a shot, when it fails go for another dime piece, before long you won't give a single fuck about rejection. Maybe you get lucky and one of the smoking hot chicks is into you! Not the fake you you're getting from some formula, the real you! Holy shit now you're set! None of this is rocket science, none of this is a formula, and none of this came from some secret society of dudes trying to get laid. It's just the obvious facts of life that stare you in the face every single day.
On May 27 2014 12:18 puppykiller wrote: Xiphos self-improvement is sold as a product. Part of selling it as a product is making the consumer assume that they are flawed. If you buy into the values self-improvement gurus tell as well as the way they ideologically reconstruct your interpretation of the world you are at there mercy to adopt their viewpoints of what you are and what you should be. That's why we have so many dumb nerds going to the gym trying to get buff, buying expensive clothing, and paying money for PUA bootcamps. It is an industry that feeds off that which perceives itself as weak and pretends to offer a simple solution to all life's woes. Trust me the day I rid myself of self-help gurus I began to feel much more empowered and in control of my life. It can be addicting and comforting to consume there rhetoric but the way they portray the world is simply not true no matter how much they have conditioned themselves to believe it.
Its not exactly as product, at least for me personally.
I make sure that the example I follow TRULY works.
Like the JD's example, I know he is a beast of SC player so I know that by studying him, I can get value out of it.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
On May 27 2014 12:18 puppykiller wrote: Xiphos self-improvement is sold as a product. Part of selling it as a product is making the consumer assume that they are flawed. If you buy into the values self-improvement gurus tell as well as the way they ideologically reconstruct your interpretation of the world you are at there mercy to adopt their viewpoints of what you are and what you should be. That's why we have so many dumb nerds going to the gym trying to get buff, buying expensive clothing, and paying money for PUA bootcamps. It is an industry that feeds off that which perceives itself as weak and pretends to offer a simple solution to all life's woes. Trust me the day I rid myself of self-help gurus I began to feel much more empowered and in control of my life. It can be addicting and comforting to consume there rhetoric but the way they portray the world is simply not true no matter how much they have conditioned themselves to believe it.
Its not exactly as product, at least for me personally.
I make sure that the example I follow TRULY works.
Like the JD's example, I know he is a beast of SC player so I know that by studying him, I can get value out of it.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Again, if you're trying to improve yourself, REALLY IMPROVE YOURSELF that's fine. But putting on a fake show to put out an image that you've somehow improved when you in fact haven't is pathetic.
Look at a druggy, if he never wants to change he'll always be a druggy. His mom, his wife, his kids, no one else can make him better, no one else can change him. He has to want it himself. He has to want it with every fiber of his being. He has to look at himself and think "I'm a fucking piece of shit and I'm destroying the life of every single person I know and I need to fucking change". No outside force can make him better, he needs to genuinely want it himself.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
Ofc you have to question yourself but at the very end, you will still be doing what ever Dendi is doing. That is emulation.
And in talking about wanting to change. Yeah all those guys who are into PUA really wants to change too. And many people needs to have example to get the concept.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
Ofc you have to question yourself but at the very end, you will still be doing what ever Dendi is doing. That is emulation.
Emulation is not improvement, flat out, that is a fact.
If I do what he does I'm not a better player.
If I see what he does and question why I can come to an answer. Now I've gained a piece of knowledge. Now I'm a better player for having that knowledge. That knowledge might lead to me questioning something else and gaining another piece of knowledge.
That is self improvement. Emulating is not self improvement.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
Ofc you have to question yourself but at the very end, you will still be doing what ever Dendi is doing. That is emulation.
And in talking about wanting to change. Yeah all those guys who are into PUA really wants to change too. And many people needs to have example to get the concept.
You shouldn't need an example. You should be able to look at the world objectively. Maybe there is something wrong with people in PUA and they're not able to see what is in front of them.
I can look at another human and see the good and the bad in them. I can look at myself and see the good and the bad in me.
On May 27 2014 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I think some of the problems with a lot of PUA type stuff is
1. A lot of it comes from a pretty misogynistic place. 2. It encourages guys to 'play a role' rather than just improve themselves or find someone who appreciates who they are. 3. It furthers psychological misgivings about courting that are apparently destructive to individuals and society at large.
To be fair not all of it comes from this angle, but more than enough to besmirch the entirety of the subject to the general public.
If someone is trying to 'hook up' with 'lots of' chicks without the intention of pursuing a relationship of value, the guy is pretty much a creep.
Women mostly depend on their looks while for men, it's less about look and more about personality, character, and wealth. Women has the tools of makeup & high heels while most guys will depend heavily on their personality and character to attract someone 'better.' PUA is a guy's makeup. PUA helps guy improve their personality and character. A theme with PUA is to always be better. People might start off not being smooth and confident, but through training and A LOT of practice, naturally they will. It's not fake as they are training to to be who they are in the future.
I really dislike when people say just be yourself and hope you find a match. Why bother trying at all? Why not just be a vegatable then wait for that perfect someone to appear? It's a fantasy dream brought on by media to sell stuff to people who are still dreaming without putting in the effort.
There is nothing creepy about a guy who wants to have sex with a lot of women. Nor is it wrong if a women wants to do the same. Beautiful people have that option by birth. Sex does not need a commitment. It's a mutual understanding by both parties. Only puritan values think otherwise.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:28 OuchyDathurts wrote: There's a difference between self improvement and playing a fake character. If you're being a fake to score pussy you should indeed be shamed.
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
I think that it's a little of both. Sure, you can read up on theory as much as possible, but practice makes perfect. And emulation/repetition is a great form of practice, even if, in the case of dating, the need to repeat can be painful. Your first few relationships probably will not end well, so you learn from those experiences, e.g., what did I do wrong that this girl didn't like me? Maybe you two just didn't have enough in common to form a lasting bond, or maybe you were overly clingy/detached, etc. Hindsight is (sometimes) 20/20, or closer to it, so you need to have to go out and learn from your experiences. Advice from others can be extremely helpful, but it won't stand up to real-life experience.
The whole "Pickup Artist" idea is a bit erroneous, I think. On one hand, it makes sense: what can I do to make myself stand out and seem desirable--but only if you understand how to capitalize on this initial advantage and actually be an attractive person. You can be "yourself" and still take advantage of techniques to make yourself more desirable without putting up a false front. Train yourself to be confident, present yourself well, and your other traits will be more effective.
I'm not exactly familiar with the PUA community, so I don't speak from experience here, but it seems like they're more focused on short-term relationships, that is, attracting a girl for a sexual relationship without regards to actually keeping her, which does require actually "being" the person you're trying to portray yourself as.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
Again I'm not saying to get scammed by PUA bootcamps because there are some guys can't get girls for shit but just tries to steal people's money. I personally didn't pay a dime beside electricity bills, internet fee, and the purchase of a laptop in order to learn the right mindset from the PUA community. The general idea of self improvement by PUA shouldn't be called "pathetic". Even for the fake PUA guys that just want to steal money, those guys paying for them is finding comfort and is an act of trying to cure themselves.
Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
Oh no, I wasn't specifically targeting this incident but rather for other people who want to lash out of the world because of their unsuccessful attempt with women to try bettering themselves through any possible means.
Coppermantis + [X]Ken_D gets the gist of it.
And PUA yeah is mostly for short term gains but however those techniques learned from the materials can definitely help you in long term relationship as well. The ability to be spontaneous, fun, making her laugh, having good habits, and getting what you want can directly translate that to become a boyfriend that her girlfriends will be jealous of and to make even better husbands that isn't boring.
But at that point, its all about what is the man looking for.
And there are actually several incident where even if you want to continue relationship with a girl that you've "picked up", the girl won't necessarily agree to that xD. They say that they don't want to have emotional attachment. And there have also been cases where guys who said that they wanted long term relationship in the initial conversation to a girl end up backfiring because all she wants is to have a short fling with the guy but since he wanted to actual date, she was no longer interested. lol
On May 27 2014 12:37 corpuscle wrote: Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
PUA requires a lot of effort on the person to actively learn. It's like joining basketball training camp and halfassing it then sucking and blaming the basketball training. Learning PUA is unlike learning things at school. You can't just memorize then regurgitate it and get good grades. Your test is real life and you will fail a lot. You'll feel embarrassed or sometimes hurt, but if you can go through it and put in the required effort, you'll be better off as you become mentally stronger.
I agree that Rodger's mentality that he was already ideal hurt him. He tried PUA, but obviously didn't put in the required effort. Some guys have to put in more effort than others. We're all different socially and talent-wise. What's odd is that Rodgers in his elementary school days, he trained hard to improved himself at skateboarding and hacky sack to impress his peers. It worked. He stopped improving himself when he saw others were more naturally talented than him at skateboarding. When he saw obstacles to his goals, he just gave up and blame others.
On May 27 2014 12:37 corpuscle wrote: Whether or not you think PUA is effective to help certain people or not, Rodger was far beyond whatever help they could have offered him. He did try the PUA stuff, which is why he uses some of their terminology like "alpha" and so on. It did not work for him (you can guess why), and he actually went and joined up with a group of men who PUA had "failed" called puahate.com, which has since been shut down after what happened.
It's entirely disingenuous to say that PUA would have helped him in any way, since he did try it and it did not work. Was that because of his own failings? Probably, yeah, from what I understand PUA is about changing yourself and he considered himself perfect already, so of course it wouldn't work. Don't pretend that he wasn't aware of it and didn't at least try, though, because he absolutely did.
PUA requires a lot of effort on the person to actively learn. It's like joining basketball training camp and halfassing it then sucking and blaming the basketball training. Learning PUA is unlike learning things at school. You can't just memorize then regurgitate it and get good grades. Your test is real life and you will fail a lot. You'll feel embarrassed or sometimes hurt, but if you can go through it and put in the required effort, you'll be better off as you become mentally stronger. .
Aye, this. You can't just assume that "I can do X thing and girls will be all over me." Wearing a nice suit, having money, or being an "alpha male" kind of person isn't going to fix underlying problems, such as, well, insanity. No PUA was ever going to fix this kid. He needed mental help--lots of it, and long ago.
I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Well, nobody knows if this is simply a correlation or if drugs are the actual cause.
It seems so. This paragraph is taken from the article I linked:
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Damn, I only just realized the puahate.com forum was shut down over this. As much as I'd like to say that it's for the better because of the "special" kind of people a community like that attracts it's really awkward to see a community explode over this.
I can think of very few forums that I want to see shut down because one of their members committed a crime. That's just wrong considering I'm not aware of them trying to collectively make people go on killing sprees.
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
Mass shootings are only the most visible (because of media) aspect of gun violence in the US. In reality they make up about 1% of gun violence. Posting a list of mass shootings and saying look how many lives were lost might evoke emotions and make us mourn the dead but it doesn't help us figure anything out.
Well, nobody knows if this is simply a correlation or if drugs are the actual cause.
It seems so. This paragraph is taken from the article I linked:
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
The point is that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.
A mentally defective person will usually get treatment in the form of psychiatric drugs. Does that mean that the person becomes violent because he took the drugs or because he is mentally defective?
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
Mass shootings are only the most visible (because of media) aspect of gun violence in the US. In reality they make up about 1% of gun violence. Posting a list of mass shootings and saying look how many lives were lost might evoke emotions and make us mourn the dead but it doesn't help us figure anything out.
I'm just hoping to highlight that surely something is wrong, if the incident of firearm related homocides is that much higher (see link in my first post) in the US compared to other developed countries. My best guess at the reason why would be the accessibility of guns. But I've never lived in the US, perhaps there is another explanation, or a combination of factors. Love to hear your thoughts on this too.
The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
Guns per hundred people:
Homicide rate
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
The US citizens are basically trading safety for safety: The safety of having a gun to protect yourself vs. the safety of not having gun-related incidents.
The much bigger issue here is that someone that is under therapy and posts alarming stuff on the Internet is able to buy multiple weapons on his own.
I think that treatment of mental health and our criminal justice system is a bigger issue than gun control will ever be. While I support background and mental health checks in order to get a firearm license, no amount of gun control will fix the problem so long as we continue to misdiagnose or ignore serious mental issues and have a justice system that actually encourages recidivism rather than rehabilitation. As long as it continues to be profitable for private prison owners to spit out criminals who will just continue to do crime and get thrown back in jail, we're still going to have a problem with violent crime.
I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
On May 27 2014 15:46 GozoShioda wrote: I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
While it is easier to talk about the tragic end result, each relating discussion correlate to how he came to be. Gun, videogames, hate for PUA, lack of affection from women, etc.. There are many what ifs scenarios that may have prevented this. What if he didn't have a gun? What if he didn't escape real life socializing and played World of Warcraft all day? What if he was actually good at PUA? What if a girl returned his affection? What if his parents didn't divorce when he was so little? Maybe one, a combination of others, or none at all would had change the outcome.
I think this guy might have been abused as a kid, even though he didn't mention it or perhaps didn't remember it (blocked it from his memory perhaps), because this freeze reaction, his so called first traumatic event at summer camp where the girl bumps him and curses at him. That kind of reaction is really only called out when people dissociate, and they generally learn this from early on when they are badly abused or molested.
A more healthy response is fight or flight, but we also have a couple others one of which is freeze or feign when we perceive there is no hope or are trying to hide.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Did you check Mexico? One of the strictest countries on gun laws?
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.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Strict firearm regulation equals low homicide rate. The opposite is not quite true: The US have world wide the highest number of guns but have relatively modest homicide rates.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
So what you are saying is that gun control does correlate with homicide rates?
Strict firearm regulation equals low homicide rate. The opposite is not quite true: The US have world wide the highest number of guns but have relatively modest homicide rates.
Correlation does not need to equal 1 in order for it to be a significant contributing factor. The rule of law is probably an important factor for homicide rates, which is why Mexico and the US score higher and lower respectively than what you would expect based only on number of firearms.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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?
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
edit: and by lol I meant to say that this guy should have been forced on meds or locked up a couple years ago. Fun read though :D
He was on meds and he still beat the system. I don't find your lol comment funny because it's people like you that created him in the first place.
Have you ever met a psychopath ? Someone who went certifiably insane ? Someone who gradually slipped into madness while everyone around him tried anything and everything to help him, eventually locking all the doors at night because he might just turn up and do god knows what ? Yeah, I didn't think so. You might wanna have some semblance of experience with psychopathy before you accuse anything of causing it buddy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
On May 27 2014 15:46 GozoShioda wrote: I'm actually more ashamed that this type of event triggers a 20+ page discussion about PUA and other things that pretty much are making me confirm that the majority of gamers are betas who are so pre-occupied with what women think about them and how they view them. Why are you guys even so adamant about discussing how to get women. Stop putting them on a pedestal.
Hi, this isn't a topic about how we can get more women in our lives. The dating thread is that way. You're projecting pretty hard here.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 just don't think that is true. I wouldn't know where to even begin if I wanted to acquire an illegal gun. Only people who are already involved with crime would possibly know. And those are not the people doing this type of shooting. They seem to always use legally obtained guns, even in countries where obtaining one legally is very difficult they go through the trouble of passing police inquiries, registering as a hunter or joining a shooting club (Breivik in Norway, van der Vlis in Netherlands). Besides, illegal guns were once legal guns, its not like criminals run their own factories. Generally it stands to reason that when something is more difficult, people are less likely to do it.
Actually, it's pretty easy to fabricate your own guns too. There is a pretty strong industry for it on the silk road, and some poor asian countries they make them out of scrap metal.
And just because you don't have a drive to own a gun doesn't mean others wont. In the same way people can go find whatever illicit drugs they want. It's not hard, just go to a shady place and ask around. I'd bet if I went to a boxing gym I could find someone who knows a guy.
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay, his non verbal communication is strange, he uses a lot of the same words over and over to sound important or aloof. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
Ding Ding Ding!
The guy had zero redeeming qualities at all. I wanted to slap the shit out of him after 10 seconds of watching a video. I can't imagine being in some sort of social situation trapped with the guy.
On May 27 2014 11:43 Xiphos wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:37 Coppermantis wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:33 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
"Playing a fake character".
Everytime you go to a gym and you say "Oh boy, there is no way I can lift that much." but your coach tell you that "Yes you can!" and keeps pushing you to do it even though you still think that you personally can't do it that someone else can. But he encourage you to have the same mindset as those guys better than ya.
You have to fake a character to get our of your current comfort zone in order to gain the confidence for self-improvement.
I feel like there's a difference between pushing yourself to an eventual goal and tricking a girl into thinking that you're different than you are so that she'll sleep with you.
Its not exactly tricking a girl into thinking that you are different. Girls are EXTREMELY apt at body languages due to biological evolution. In the first couple of minutes of talking to a guy, they can tell whether or not someone is being completely genuine or just faking it. So they can end it anytime they want if they feel being tricked.
For the guys that are faking it so well, you won't be able to tell because he have practiced it a lot but after that much time to faking a certain character that it is completely real, the person is not faking it anymore, he improve himself to the level of actually becoming that attractive guy.
On May 27 2014 11:40 MarlieChurphy wrote:
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: MarlieChurphy,
Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one.
There are communities out there to improve men's lifestyle in such ways and they aren't "confused" as you make them sound to be. And no one should shame someone to learn the method of improvement.
What the hell does this have to do with anything?
This guy is disturbed so any other thing is extraneous and arguably irrelevant.
This isn't about his inability to attract women or whatever. This is much deeper issue of his psyche. Girls not being attracted to him is because he's nuts and on top of that he is sounds and acts gay his non verbal communication is strange. nuts being the things I named before, narcissist, totally warped view of reality (appearance being most important thing), etc. etc. I mean just watch this video.
I'm saying that to prevent further incidence of a guy's inability to attract girls to lash out, encourage them to learn about material in order to help them get girls is part of the solution.
No no no, don't learn material. BE A BETTER PERSON. Granted he was a mental defective so nothing is going to change that part. But he'd have to literally relearn everything from square one. He'd have to entirely change his outlook on life, money, girls, entitlement, race, everything. Not just read off queue cards, go into a jungle somewhere and reflect on how awful he was as a person and change everything.
Please learn some basic psychology treatment for depression.
Is this a forum for clinical psychologists or something?
You don't have to fake anything in life. If you look at yourself and find a flaw fix the flaw, don't pretend it doesn't exist. CERTAINLY don't fake shit to cover it up because then you're only putting a bandaid on something. ESPECIALLY in this guys case he's a ticking time bomb. You're just going to go around lying to everyone to lure someone in only for them to later find out you're a complete fucking homicidal lunatic?
Use some self reflection not some "paint by numbers to get your dick wet" system. "Hmmm, You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm going to try and catch myself when I'm negative and try and look at the bright side of things". THAT is self improvement. Going "Hmmm. You know what? I'm a negative person and that's not really cool. I'm just going to broadcast fake positivity and hope no one gets to know me and finds out I'm a negative nelly deep down" is sad and will never leave to self improvement.
If you study someone and copy what they are doing, you will have this "Euraka" moment of "OH THATS WHY HE CHOOSE TO EXPAND THERE INSTEAD!". Oh sick, I'll remember to do that next time. You won't 100% copy and understand what the professionals are doing but you can certainly emulate their success.
You only get that Eureka moment when you want to have it. I'll go down the DotA route since that's more my thing. If I watch Dendi or RTZ or whoever and see them do something and say "That was neato! I want to do that!" and do it in a pub game, I'm probably actually losing the game for my team. I can do what I saw him do but if I don't understand WHY he did what he did it's fruitless and I'm most likely actually a worse player for doing it. That's my point, you're not improving yourself unless you question yourself. Monkey see monkey do doesn't lead to improvement unless monkey questions.
Ofc you have to question yourself but at the very end, you will still be doing what ever Dendi is doing. That is emulation.
Emulation is not improvement, flat out, that is a fact.
If I do what he does I'm not a better player.
If I see what he does and question why I can come to an answer. Now I've gained a piece of knowledge. Now I'm a better player for having that knowledge. That knowledge might lead to me questioning something else and gaining another piece of knowledge.
That is self improvement. Emulating is not self improvement.
Even though I disagree with Xiphos purely on the grounds that I see self-improvement only ever discussed in terms of "getting oneself to be more attractive to women" and not in terms of morality ("this guy is doing more good/less harm than that other guy and that's why he's a better person, not because he gets more women"), I honestly don't see how your own definition of self-improvement is in any way meaningful?
And I think the reason I disagree with both of you is because you are both discussing self-improvement under the wrong assumptions. It shouldn't be about improving your own status in society, self-improvement should only have the end-goal of you becoming a more moral and better person.
Self-improvement to me has exclusively to do with morality and the morality of actions and absolutely nothing to do with social status or how much sex you can get, but sadly it's almost always discussed in that way.
I read the manifesto last night. Does anyone else see the parallel, if not outright equivalence between Eliott Rodger, and Mary Shelley's brilliant creation, Frankenstein's Monster?
"You are in the wrong," replied the fiend; "and instead of threatening, I am content to reason with you. I am malicious because I am miserable. Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind? You, my creator, would tear me to pieces and triumph; remember that, and tell me why I should pity man more than he pities me? You would not call it murder if you could precipitate me into one of those ice-rifts and destroy my frame, the work of your own hands. Shall I respect man when he condemns me? Let him live with me in the interchange of kindness, and instead of injury I would bestow every benefit upon him with tears of gratitude at his acceptance. But that cannot be; the human senses are insurmountable barriers to our union. Yet mine shall not be the submission of abject slavery. I will revenge my injuries; if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear
He was not insane, nor do the self-serving harrangues of gun control and feminist activists address the fundamental poison which destroyed this young man's life.
Taking even money on when this thread takes the turn into gun control madness entirely. As sad as it is, about the PUAhate/forever alone discussion is one that I think should be had. Vice magazine had some interesting quotes that I think are quite excellent.
Quoting from Rodger's own video to start:
";...Girls gave their affection, and sex, and love, to othermen. But never to me. I'm 22 years old, and I'm still a virgin.'
This kind of statement should make Elliot Rodger's motivations crystal-fucking-clear: misogynistic, mentally ill, desperate male entitlement...."
Another one of their contributors wrote:
"The Elliott Rodgers massacre is an act of terrorism aimed at punish women for controlling their own sexual lives. Guns beside the point..."
Hyperbolic? Yes, but there is a good point to be taken that ties into mental health and the ability to dissociate of oneself from one's abilities to be successful in certain social/sexual spheres.
Regardless it is a sad event, it seems like Elliott left a lot of materials behind that might give more insight into his thought process than a lot of people who have committed similar crimes. I hope there is something to be made out of that.
another good point that highlights that is when he wrote
...a pretty girl to be my girlfriend... That was what I wanted in life. Every single hate-fueled ideal, world-view, and philosophy I created in the past was a result of not being able to do that.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
The attempt to improve his prospects by adopting a Gatsby syndrome was part of the story, but the main reason that he could not become a better pick-up artist was because his pride prevented him from imitating the brutish sort of masculinity which he had learned to despise from an early age. He wanted what other men had, without wanting to become what they were.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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 of 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?
I prefer people not to have guns, personally. That aside it's down to your own opinion and intuition, there are countries that function well with guns, others that do without.
It's ridiculous, we're not talking about thought experimental utopia, but actual societies with data to look at. 'X can't work because of Y' when there are multitudes of examples of the inverse being true.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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?
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
This is just bad argument. The law has a deterrent function. Of course it can't completely eradicate things, so a law against murder can't make murder non-existent. But apply your mind, and think of the deterrent effect of a law against murder - without such a law, people would just have no legal prohibitions about murdering people. So should we just do away with anti-murder laws? Since murderers will be murderers anyway?
The idea that if someone wants to commit a crime, they will get a gun is just convenient sleight of hand that misses the point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the causes of his feelings are well understood on their most basic levels. What you call it is fighting over symbols, when we should spend more time trying to understand what is being signified.
The most lamentable habits of public theatre occur when people think that the question is answered when you are able to slap a label on it.
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.
On May 27 2014 15:35 urboss wrote: The homicide rate doesn't really correlate with the number of guns available.
It is however noteable that those countries that have very strict firearm regulations do also have very low homicide rates. e.g.: China, Canada, Australia, UK, Central Europe, Japan
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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 01:02 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.
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.
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.
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 01:02 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
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.
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 02:06 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 02:06 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.
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 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 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.
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 02:06 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 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.
@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.
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 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?
@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.
@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 02:06 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.
@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)
You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement?
And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy.
My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology.
On May 27 2014 14:02 crc wrote: I don't get the argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from gun violence" that I've been seeing all over the place. That's not a valid defense, if guns are strictly controlled then there would be very little gun violence to begin with. Just look at almost every other developed country and their rates of gun crime.
US has a homocide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 population, and the next highest developed nation is Israel at 0.9 then Greece at 0.6. When you get down to Australian and UK it's even lower. The difference is staggering! And as an Australian, I just can't understand this second amendment and how attached you guys are to it, why is it that important? Plenty of countries are fine without anything similar to it in their constitution.
Here we go again. You realize the killer stabbed 3 people to death before he shot and killed 3 people right? Your country and other countries are NOT the US. US is the most drugged country in the world by far.
Yeah, in this case, he was stopped before he got any further. He had enough ammo to do much more. Look at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. Hey even better, look at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States and see how many lives were lost due to guns.
And with drugs, they are prevelant in every country. More to the point, lots of the shootings weren't influenced by drugs at all (like the guys behind sandy hook and virginia tech), just people going crazy. If they don't have such easy access to guns, nothing more would've came of it.
No, the killers from Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech were BOTH on psychiatric drugs.
"It seems pretty clear that psychiatric drugs played a key role in this killer’s life. Considering this data about Rodgers and the fact that there are 22 drug regulatory agency warnings from five countries and the European Union on psychiatric drugs causing violence, hostility, aggression, psychosis, mania and homicidal ideation, and lawmakers still don’t get it… they still think the problem lies in the tool used in the killings?"
Taken from the link I posted.
It's a fact that all the major mass shootings we've seen over the past 15 years the killers were prescribed some form of psychiatric drugs. More people in the US are prescribed psychiatric drugs than anywhere else. They prescribe them throughout many schools all over the US. It's obvious this problem is getting worse the more people are prescribed psychiatric drugs.
Anyone hear of those bath salts that literally turned people into zombies and they'd go around biting people's faces off?
This, like all the other spree shootings, is really sad. I don't really want to know more about the perpetrator, or dwell on his "ideology" or mental state. I wish he had not done this. I fear that the general public focuses on these murderers and creates anti-heroes out of them.
@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)
You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement?
And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy.
My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology.
A causes B causes C. its true that both A and B cause C. I was never saying A had nothing to do with it. A is what we as a society are (or should be) trying to get rid of. Individuals have ideologies. Crazy individuals still have ideologies. Some of these motivate them to do crazy things, like in this case. The fact that he is crazy affects what he believes but it does not make him incapable of believing anything.
You started this thread with "... perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me." I responded to you when you said he didn't hate women he hated everyone. after i pointed to where he repeatedly hated on women and explained how he can hate everyone while/because he hates women, you went with "he was inconsistent in who he killed", i disagreed that this had any significance, but you wouldn't let it go finally ending up bouncing around these points of "ultimate cause" and "ideology has nothing to do with the individual" Can you stop projecting your resentment for your mother to everyone that acknowledges misogyny. He tried really hard to make his primary motivator exceptionally clear and you still can't accept it. of course this motivator didn't come out of no where but that has nothing to do with if its the motivator or not.
@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)
You don't think asserting that "the reason/his motive why he did X is Y" is a causal statement?
And by the way, I told you repeatedly that I won't play this kind of ballgame where we kind of have to presuppose that we should even care what Elliot Rodgers' thoughts were, given the fact that he was evidently crazy.
My stance is very clear on this, he was simply crazy, there are millions if not billions of people living worse lives than him and they don't go around killing people, so this has everything to do with Elliot Rodgers as an individual and absolutely nothing with his ideology.
A causes B causes C. its true that both A and B cause C. I was never saying A had nothing to do with it. A is what we as a society are (or should be) trying to get rid of. Individuals have ideologies. Crazy individuals still have ideologies. Some of these motivate them to do crazy things, like in this case. The fact that he is crazy affects what he believes but it does not make him incapable of believing anything.
Which I of course never said. Crazy people believe all kinds of things, there are even people who believe they can fly until they try it and fall to their own deaths. Which is why I don't understand how this particular crazy person's beliefs are supposed to be relevant to the non-crazy population now. Yes people can believe things even if they are crazy, but that in no way undermines the fact that they are primarily crazy.
You started this thread with "... perhaps we should now blame women for this shooting. Seems fair to me."
First of all thank you for quote-mining my post, you disingenous imbecile.
If you had actually posted the rest of what I said it would be very obvious that my statement was an attempt to criticise the mainstream media for causally linking events to irrelevant factors such as the perpetrator playing videogames.
I responded to you when you said he didn't hate women he hated everyone. after i pointed to where he repeatedly hated on women and explained how he can hate everyone while/because he hates women, you went with "he was inconsistent in who he killed", i disagreed that this had any significance, but you wouldn't let it go
And why? Because it's nonsense. To you what the person thought is more important than what the person actually did.
finally ending up bouncing around these points of "ultimate cause" and "ideology has nothing to do with the individual" Can you stop projecting your resentment for your mother to everyone that acknowledges misogyny.
Yes, let's instead make this about me now. Wonderful, feminist scare-tactics... "someone disagrees with me let's distort their arguments and focus on them as a person."
He tried really hard to make his primary motivator exceptionally clear and you still can't accept it.
And again, as I said repeatedly I don't care how crazy people justify their actions, I don't think it's relevant to us normal people at all. If his thought process was basically "No woman loves me, therefore I should kill them" - then he is simply crazy, no normal person would ever think like that, so I fail to see how it is relevant to anyone else except Elliot Rodgers himself.
okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
On May 28 2014 05:04 Wombat_NI wrote: He resented the men because they got the women he felt he deserved, they are inextricably linked in that sense.
Are they? How do you know that the men he killed got all the women he felt he deserved? I think it's very possible that some of the men he killed were still virgins. Unless you have that information and can be confident that Elliot Rodgers had that information when he commited the crime this just sounds like speculation on your part.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
On May 28 2014 05:04 Wombat_NI wrote: He resented the men because they got the women he felt he deserved, they are inextricably linked in that sense.
Are they? How do you know that the men he killed got all the women he felt he deserved? I think it's very possible that some of the men he killed were still virgins. Unless you have that information and can be confident that Elliot Rodgers had that information when he commited the crime this just sounds like speculation on your part.
Because he said them himself on his manifesto....
EdIt: Because he wrote them himself on his manifesto....
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
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
The term "objectification" is largely meaningless, because of its transfiguration into a vehicle for rhetorical attack by members of a certain Weltanschauung. It's also inaccurate because most people who are accused of"objectifying" people when we place an excessive emphasis on appearances are not actually objectifying them. As Balzac once wrote, every man is responsible for his own face.
I think that the issue you raise with his obsession with blondes might be an important angle, and I am not sure whether this has been considered yet. Some commentators have speculated this as the manifestation of his self-hatred, and his idealisation of his aesthetic opposite. There is a certain sense of racial inferiority as well by virtue of his half-bloodedness. It is evident that early in life he regarded his Asian half as a source of shame and a barrier to his claims of respectability and acceptance. His personal frustrations led him to rationalise his impotence through a variety of abstractions, including ones about race and gender. This conviction seems to have crystallised fairly early in his life, and later in life when he discovered that minorities, even lower on the racial hierarchy than himself enjoyed the fruits of female attention with greater facility, it exacerbated his sense of injury.
His racism and misogyny became waypoints in his search for the origins of his own afflictions. They go side by side with his eclectic conclusions about class, wealth, appearance, attitude, confidence. In short, in his search for a why, his mind sought the answer in almost intellectual crevice he could conceive, yet he never found that answer.
In his writing he never bothered to distinguish "sex" and "love." My impression was that he thought of them as the same thing. Having sex with a girl would make him feel loved. It is very difficult to assign a hierarchy between his romantic and sexual motivations, in my reading anyway.
I actually really disliked this video. Not necessarily for the content (although he cherry picks from the Rodger's story for his narrative), but instead because of his preachy tone. He also starts off by saying people are using this tragedy for their political agendas, and then throughout the video, obviously tries to impart his own world views.
@SlixSC You're starting to sound extremely uninformed. Did you not read what I wrote earlier about why he killed the men he did? He didn't kill more men on purpose. Half of his victims were his roommates (3 of the 4 men killed), which he explicitly wrote he had to kill to prevent them from getting in his way for executing his killing spree. The fact that more men died does not disprove his misogynistic worldview.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
I actually really disliked this video. Not necessarily for the content (although he cherry picks from the Rodger's story for his narrative), but instead because of his preachy tone. He also starts off by saying people are using this tragedy for their political agendas, and then throughout the video, obviously tries to impart his own world views.
Yeah I did not like how he started off either. It's very opinionated.
In ALL form of courtship, ALL parties are objectified.
Women feel "violated" because they are mainly objectified by shallowness of men by their appearance.
Guess what?
Women fucking objectifies men too but not by their looks but by what men can do in a shallow manner.
Everybody is objectified is one way or another.
So yeah ladies, you like me because I can provide the necessary experience for you to embark on with monetary support or any other extra curricular activities that I've learned and I like you because you are incredibly good looking.
Deal with it.
And if you are a good looking lady but don't want to be objectified, then destroy your beauty by gaining weights and messing up your skin so that's not the first thing in a men's priority list to look for and work on your personalities and abilities to get money in order to provide for the man.
If you don't do the above and still hope to not get objectified, well that ain't gonna to happen. So embrace the reality.
On May 28 2014 05:26 Xiphos wrote: In ALL form of courtship, ALL parties are objectified.
Women feel "violated" because they are mainly objectified by shallowness of men by their appearance.
Guess what?
Women fucking objectifies men too but not by their looks but by what men can do in a shallow manner.
Everybody is objectified is one way or another.
So yeah ladies, you like me because I can provide the necessary experience for you to embark on with monetary support or any other extra curricular activities that I've learned and I like you because you are incredibly good looking.
Deal with it.
And if you are a good looking lady but don't want to be objectified, then destroy your beauty by gaining weights and messing up your skin so that's not the first thing in a men's priority list to look for and work on your personalities and abilities to get money in order to provide for the man.
If you don't do the above and still hope to not get objectified, well that ain't gonna to happen. So embrace the reality.
Did you just say that only ugly women have a hope of being liked for more than their looks and that they should make themselves ugly if that's what they want? Did you mean to post that in the dating thread i'm not following your segway.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are good enough for them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place? Didn't I say earlier that this was a pointless mental exercise? Do you agree with me now?
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
On May 28 2014 05:26 Xiphos wrote: In ALL form of courtship, ALL parties are objectified.
Women feel "violated" because they are mainly objectified by shallowness of men by their appearance.
Guess what?
Women fucking objectifies men too but not by their looks but by what men can do in a shallow manner.
Everybody is objectified is one way or another.
So yeah ladies, you like me because I can provide the necessary experience for you to embark on with monetary support or any other extra curricular activities that I've learned and I like you because you are incredibly good looking.
Deal with it.
And if you are a good looking lady but don't want to be objectified, then destroy your beauty by gaining weights and messing up your skin so that's not the first thing in a men's priority list to look for and work on your personalities and abilities to get money in order to provide for the man.
If you don't do the above and still hope to not get objectified, well that ain't gonna to happen. So embrace the reality.
Did you just say that only ugly women have a hope of being liked for more than their looks and that they should make themselves ugly if that's what they want? Did you mean to post that in the dating thread i'm not following your segway.
Re-read the bold part.
Ugly women are already ugly so if they aren't doing their best to work on their appearance or honing their personality, then its the sad truth about them.
A girl born ugly is the same as a men born poor.
Except beauty can be enhanced with the miracle of science in makeup, exercise, plastic surgery, and implants.
And men can instead utilize his intelligent to gain more wealth.
On May 28 2014 04:07 MoltkeWarding wrote: 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.
And I'm sure he actually believed this. And therein lies the problem.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
Yeah this isn't only hatred toward one group but multiple of.
He was a racist. He hated how those Asian can get the girls but he can't. He hated how the white kids can get some but he can't.
He hated those men for it.
And he hated the women for falling into their laps.
This isn't a gender issue. He was genetically wired to be adamant in his position even though there were many people willing to help him, he pushed them away. A character like his is BOND to be ticking time bomb.
And its better that he was stopped earlier because given enough time, he could've executed a much more elaborated plan to hurt even more people.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 04:59 ComaDose wrote: okay man, if you disagree with the statement the crazy person jumped out of the window because he thought he could fly then i don't know how to explain it to you any different.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
You know I had a very good and fruitful debate with Kwark earlier in this thread, I could see where he was coming from and I actually gained alot of respect for feminists like him during that debate. But you on the other hand are the kind of feminist that just makes me want to bang my head against a wall.
You are not doing yourself or your cause any favors whatsoever.
i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic.
No, I agree with that statement, because the action is consistent with the belief. Wanting to kill women and then killing more men than women is not consistent, even for a crazy person
He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
On May 28 2014 05:12 ComaDose wrote: [quote] i didn't say anything about feminism at all... are you sure you're still responding to the right person? I believe the conversation we were having was if his motive was misogynistic. [quote] He didn't say he wanted to kill women... i asked you earlier but did you read what he wrote or watch what he recorded?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
I read and watched some of it. And it's exactly the reason I see him as the crazy person he is. You say his motive was that he hated women, which then led him to conclude that he had to kill other people.
It is exactly that kind of flawed reasoning I take issue with. It doesn't make sense. No normal person would ever think like that, which is exactly why I fail to see how this is relevant to anyone but Elliot Rodgers himself.
He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: [quote] He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: [quote] He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
who said Elliot Rodgers motivations were relevant to anyone but himself?
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
So hatred for one group only = misogynist/misandry
Hatred for both = misanthropist
Ah okay based upon this definition, he is not a misogynist.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
[quote]
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
Which is complete and utter nonsense on his part, because he himself was only ever concerned with girls he thought to be attractive, he didn't even consider hooking up with a fat girl or a girl that in his eyes wasn't attractive.
Even put into those words it still doesn't make sense. Because justice is punishing "crimes" with equal punishment. And I'm sorry killing people because they don't think you are deserving them or however you want to put it is not justice. No normal person would ever think that, it's totally irrelevant to our society and to us as individuals, because pretty much nobody except Elliot Rodgers thinks like that.
of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either.
[quote]
Well if you agree that it's irrelevant and there is nothing we can do about it, why would you even mention it in the first place?
i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
So hatred for one group only = misogynist/misandry
Hatred for both = misanthropist
Ah okay based upon this definition, he is not a misogynist.
Being misanthropist includes being a misogynist/misandrist. However being a misogynist or misandrist does not make you a misanthropist. See how that works?
He hated every man who was more socially and sexually successful than him, which was everyone. He planned to kill his little brother, whom he loved, because of his pathological jealousy of anyone more successful with women than himself.
His hatred with women arose from their "stupidity" in choosing inferior, jock-like brutes in precedence over "gentlemen" (read: nerds) like himself.
On May 28 2014 05:36 ComaDose wrote: [quote] of course his logic doesn't make sense, he is bad shit crazy. similarly his misogynistic views don't make any sense to me either. [quote] i didn't agree with anything, i responded to you saying his motives weren't misogynistic and its taken this long to correct you.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
Which is complete and utter nonsense on his part, because he himself was only ever concerned with girls he thought to be attractive, he didn't even consider hooking up with a fat girl or a girl that in his eyes wasn't attractive.
a lot of things he did were complete and utter nonsense, like when he said
I started to hate all girls because of this. I saw them as mean, cruel, and heartless creatures that took pleasure from my suffering
or when he said
All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.
edit: i got to go but it seems so obvious to me how all his hatred bread from his sexist views and hatred toward women. Considering he got it out there that that was the case as many times in as many ways as he could. You can call that w.e. you want.
And if you read my post again you will find that all I said was "he didn't just hate women, he hated everyone." He hated women for not being with him and he hated men for being with the women he wanted to be with. This isn't just misogyny, it's misanthropy. I fail to see how that is an incorrect statement.
christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
Which is complete and utter nonsense on his part, because he himself was only ever concerned with girls he thought to be attractive, he didn't even consider hooking up with a fat girl or a girl that in his eyes wasn't attractive.
a lot of things he did were complete and utter nonsense, like when he said
All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.
edit: i got to go but it seems so obvious to me how all his hatred bread from his sexist views and hatred toward women. Considering he got it out there that that was the case as many times in as many ways as he could. You can call that w.e. you want.
Right, I mean he is in a way contradicting himself there anyway. First it's all girls, then it's just beautiful girls he's focusing on (fatties and uglies may live, they don't matter anyway.... justice in the eyes of "king" Elliot the crazy, first and hopefully last of his line).
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.
People in the USA are just utterly brainwashed into thinking they don't have it anywhere near as bad as they actually do..
wait what? We are brainwashed into thinking it's bad but not that bad? Like compared to what? Can you elaborate?
On May 28 2014 05:55 ComaDose wrote: [quote] christ you are stuborn; you also said "So what I'm suggesting is that his actions weren't the result of misogyny" I am saying clearly his motivations were misogynistic.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
Which is complete and utter nonsense on his part, because he himself was only ever concerned with girls he thought to be attractive, he didn't even consider hooking up with a fat girl or a girl that in his eyes wasn't attractive.
a lot of things he did were complete and utter nonsense, like when he said
I started to hate all girls because of this. I saw them as mean, cruel, and heartless creatures that took pleasure from my suffering
or when he said
All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.
edit: i got to go but it seems so obvious to me how all his hatred bread from his sexist views and hatred toward women. Considering he got it out there that that was the case as many times in as many ways as he could. You can call that w.e. you want.
Right, I mean he is in a way contradicting himself there anyway. First it's all girls, then it's just beautiful girls he's focusing on (fatties and uglies may live, they don't matter anyway.... justice in the eyes of "king" Elliot the crazy, first and hopefully last of his line).
well according to Xiphos fatties and uglies are the only ones that have a chance of being liked for anything but their looks so i guess they are doubly blessed. But Elliot contradicting himself doesn't lessen my point in anyway.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
Its an age old thing. Using tragedies and events to further push whatever you stand for. Nothing new. So, I'm not surprised to see the feminist bloggers all in arms about this.
What people really should be talking about is the responsibility about the media coverage about this. Isn't it coverage like this that attracts mentally ill people like him?
I find some of the usage of this for various agendas at times distasteful and at times plain incorrect but really? Mentally imbalanced or not, I don't see how you can tag his views as anything other than misogynistic.
On May 28 2014 07:58 Wombat_NI wrote: I find some of the usage of this for various agendas at times distasteful and at times plain incorrect but really? Mentally imbalanced or not, I don't see how you can tag his views as anything other than misogynistic.
He killed more men than women so he must have been a pretty shitty misogynist.
But see I don't understand that logic. If he hated both men and women, how does it follow that his motivations were misogynistic and not misanthropistic or even misandristic?
On May 28 2014 05:25 ComaDose wrote: He said it is an injustice he would not let stand that the women he deserves are with lesser men than him. This feeling of entitlement is misogynistic. He then said/implied that because of this he's gonna kill his roommates then go to the sorority and kill women then drive around killing randoms. Then he did that.
What does that have to do with my question? A feeling of entitlement that you deserve more women than lesser men (which, let's be quite frank here, in his view included pretty much everyone), is just as misandristic as it is misogynistic.
no it isn't... i don't even know how to respond to that. We agree that feeling like you deserve or are entitled to women is sexist and bad right?
Obviously. But you are missing the point. Do you understand what the words misandry and misogyny mean? "Hatred of men or women" respectively.
So if there is a person that hates both men and women (for whatever reason) they are both a misandrist and a misogynist by definition and more specifically (or I guess more generally actually) a misanthropist.
He didn't hate all men, he said he was going to murder every woman. you understand that a fully adjusted person can hate a man and a woman and not be a misandrist and a misogynist. His warped sexist ideas against women are why he hated anyone.
Which is complete and utter nonsense on his part, because he himself was only ever concerned with girls he thought to be attractive, he didn't even consider hooking up with a fat girl or a girl that in his eyes wasn't attractive.
a lot of things he did were complete and utter nonsense, like when he said
I started to hate all girls because of this. I saw them as mean, cruel, and heartless creatures that took pleasure from my suffering
or when he said
All of those beautiful girls I've desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy.
edit: i got to go but it seems so obvious to me how all his hatred bread from his sexist views and hatred toward women. Considering he got it out there that that was the case as many times in as many ways as he could. You can call that w.e. you want.
Right, I mean he is in a way contradicting himself there anyway. First it's all girls, then it's just beautiful girls he's focusing on (fatties and uglies may live, they don't matter anyway.... justice in the eyes of "king" Elliot the crazy, first and hopefully last of his line).
well according to Xiphos fatties and uglies are the only ones that have a chance of being liked for anything but their looks so i guess they are doubly blessed. But Elliot contradicting himself doesn't lessen my point in anyway.
It kind of does. Because your point is that Elliot was a misogynist because he generally hated women. But that's not really true, when you look at what he said it is very obvious that he was only concerned with attractive women, he didn't actually hate all women (in fact alot of women he didn't even care about at all... fat, ugly and/or unattractive women, etc..), but pretty specifically attractive women. But that isn't misogyny.
Just in the same sense that hating some men, but not all men isn't misandry, an argument you yourself even made earlier.
You can't have it both ways, he is either a misandrist and misogynist or he is neither.
edit: And I hope maybe now you can see why I'm having such a hard time tackling your argument, because you keep shifting the goal posts. Hating a specific group of women (to you) qualifies as misogyny but hating a specific group of men (the men who get the attractive women) somehow doesn't qualify as misandry.
On May 28 2014 08:12 Wombat_NI wrote: You can have the worst kind of racist/xenophobic/sexist/homophobic views, as long as you don't kill anyone from that group they become irrelevant?
Do you not understand how "His hatred of women led him to kill more men than women" sounds silly?
I think we can all agree that he was batshit insane and hated a lot of people, the rest is just semantics anyway. I think the more important point is figuring out which pragmatical changes can be made so this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.
On May 28 2014 08:26 Nyxisto wrote: I think we can all agree that he was batshit insane and hated a lot of people, the rest is just semantics anyway. I think the more important point is figuring out which pragmatical changes can be made so this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.
After reading through most of his 'manifesto', here's what I came up with:
-Gun control. Prevent crazies like this guy from legally acquiring firearms. This wouldn't have prevented the stabbings, but lack of access to guns would probably have prevented his plan from being formulated in the first place. -De-stigmatize male virginity. Just because one male is has had sex and the other hasn't doesn't make the former superior or 'more of a man' than the latter, and virginity should stop being used as an insult. -De-emphasize the connection of sex with self-worth, and discourage sexual bullying. -Find a way to decrease sex drive? As a single male with a relatively low sex drive who is fine with being alone, I still think that my primal urges are just too strong for comfort sometimes. The human race would probably survive just fine if sex drive overall was toned down something like ~50%. We'd probably be a lot more productive too.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here: + Show Spoiler +
The guy was 5'9", that can barely be considered short and would be well above average in some cultures. Just goes to show how shallow and insipid our culture can be. No wonder this guy felt the need to exact revenge on society.
On May 28 2014 08:26 Nyxisto wrote: I think we can all agree that he was batshit insane and hated a lot of people, the rest is just semantics anyway. I think the more important point is figuring out which pragmatical changes can be made so this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.
After reading through most of his 'manifesto', here's what I came up with:
-Gun control. Prevent crazies like this guy from legally acquiring firearms. This wouldn't have prevented the stabbings, but lack of access to guns would probably have prevented his plan from being formulated in the first place. -De-stigmatize male virginity. Just because one male is has had sex and the other hasn't doesn't make the former superior or 'more of a man' than the latter, and virginity should stop being used as an insult. -De-emphasize the connection of sex with self-worth, and discourage sexual bullying. -Find a way to decrease sex drive? As a single male with a relatively low sex drive who is fine with being alone, I still think that my primal urges are just too strong for comfort sometimes. The human race would probably survive just fine if sex drive overall was toned down something like ~50%. We'd probably be a lot more productive too.
California has some of the strictest gun control in the country, and yet thats where he lived and committed the murders.
Lack of guns may have just driven him to a more imaginative rampage.
Timothy McVeigh killed 82 with fertilizer after all. There've been a few spree killings in Japan where lunatics just drive through crowds of people.
Totally agree with the rest of it though.
I think he was a product of his environment. He was raised in the hollywood culture where all his role models can get basically whatever they want simply by being rich and famous. He learned that that's what it took to get girls, and when the real world said otherwise, he couldn't handle it.
^considering the lack of intelligence and creative thinking he displayed throughout his manifesto, I would be surprised to see him come up with anything more imaginative than simply storming a sorority house with a machine gun.
I mean, this is a guy who literally thought he would be able to win the lottery just by thinking about it really hard.
Gun control might not be the cure-all, but it would be able to prevent some spree killers from carrying out their plans, at least.
These 'this guy wasn't a misogynist' arguments are laughable.
If you hate men based on the fact that they are men, and so (you believe) are inherently responsible for or inherently possess traits that are commonly expressed amongst men, you are a misandrist
If you hate women based on the fact that they are women, and so (you believe) are inherently responsible for or inherently possess traits that are commonly expressed amongst women, you are a mysogynist.
If you hate people based on the fact that they are people, and so (you believe) are inherently responsible for or inherently possess traits that are commonly expressed amongst people, you are a misanthropist
These three things are not incompatible. You can be all three. And an asshole to boot. So the fact he hated guys also, doesn't prevent him from being a mysogynist. If he did not distinguish in his reasons for hating men/women/people, then we might have a debate on our hands. He did, very clearly, so we don't.
The fact he focused his hatred on 'pretty' women as opposed to all women doesn't matter at all. His hatred was still directed at women, and to be quite honest, the fact he made the distinction only makes it a more mysogynistic view, since the hatred was based upon a general attribute associated with women (contemporary standards of female-gendered beauty) rather than individual attributes of individual women (which would just be him being an asshole, not a misogynist, for the most part)
So the fact that he didn't actively focus his hatred in a perfect equilibrium across all women doesn't mean he was not a misogynist.
The fact he did not only attack women is... I don't even know why I'm bothering, but I'll try anyway... not a way of determining how mysogynistic he is. Sometimes Justin Beiber makes me so angry I want to punch a wall. Does this mean I hate walls any more and Justin Beiber any less? Nope. His manifesto makes it very clear that his frustration and anger is centered around women, and in almost all cases he hates other things because they represent an obstacle or an unfairness to him gaining fulfillment with women. I'm not saying this was always the case, but it's clear that his fixation with his relationships with women was, at the time of the spree, his primary motivation.
So the fact that he lashed out in a pretty indiscriminate fashion at the end (in stark contrast to the very focused slaughter he planned of the sorority house, with the street spree as a kind of closing act) does not change his motivations, which were a sick mix of vengeance against and showing off to women.
Unless anyone has some major disagreements there, we can proceed to the next stage, which is 'how relevant was his misogyny to this tragedy, as compared to other factors?'
I think we can all agree that he was batshit insane and hated a lot of people, the rest is just semantics anyway.
Unfortunately, the people who actually want to actively try and stop this happening again, in whatever way they can and however small a part they can play, disagree. The rest may be complicated, but it is relevant. We live in a world of cause and effect. Saying 'he was insane so that's the reason' is pretty much the same as saying 'god did it, so that's the reason'. You break the chain of causality. Something caused him to go bonkers. Something caused that, too. Somewhere down the chain is a place where, if things had gone differently, we might have a few more innocent people alive today. I can appreciate your desire not to become involved in the effort of seeking that place. I cannot appreciate your attempt to label it as inconsequential.
On May 28 2014 08:16 SlixSC wrote: edit: And I hope maybe now you can see why I'm having such a hard time tackling your argument, because you keep shifting the goal posts. Hating a specific group of women (to you) qualifies as misogyny but hating a specific group of men (the men who get the attractive women) somehow doesn't qualify as misandry.
I'm shifting the goal posts? I said he hates women. You're goal post started on the other side of the field with "he couldn't because he killed more men then women." Then he couldn't be because we couldn't believe what he said because he was crazy. Then it was that he hated men just as much. Now its that he only hated some women.
I mean he said "I started to hate all girls because of this" The first line of the manifesto is "All of my suffering on this world has been at the hands of humanity, particularly women" why are we arguing.
It kind of does. Because your point is that Elliot was a misogynist because he generally hated women. But that's not really true, when you look at what he said it is very obvious that he was only concerned with attractive women, he didn't actually hate all women (in fact alot of women he didn't even care about at all... fat, ugly and/or unattractive women, etc..), but pretty specifically attractive women. But that isn't misogyny.
Just in the same sense that hating some men, but not all men isn't misandry, an argument you yourself even made earlier.
You can't have it both ways, he is either a misandrist and misogynist or he is neither.
He did hate all women. Just because he talks about the pretty ones more doesn't mean he didn't hate the ugly ones. The sites he liked made fun of ugly and fat women. He says just "women" all the time like "as I burned with hatred towards all women for rejecting me throughout the years" I think a lot more then he hated men. I think he was just jealous of other men. Maybe just all men that were less wealthy than him getting laid around the same age and lower. Call it whatever you want.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
On May 28 2014 08:26 Nyxisto wrote: I think we can all agree that he was batshit insane and hated a lot of people, the rest is just semantics anyway. I think the more important point is figuring out which pragmatical changes can be made so this sort of thing doesn't happen anymore.
I think this immediately highlights a lack of mental medical care and awareness. If he had a friend or a family member pay better attention he should have got better help. He never should have stopped getting help.
On May 28 2014 08:16 SlixSC wrote: edit: And I hope maybe now you can see why I'm having such a hard time tackling your argument, because you keep shifting the goal posts. Hating a specific group of women (to you) qualifies as misogyny but hating a specific group of men (the men who get the attractive women) somehow doesn't qualify as misandry.
I'm shifting the goal posts? I said he hates women. You're goal post started on the other side of the field with "he couldn't because he killed more men then women."
I can stop you right there, because that alone is bullshit.
You really are in the business of quote-mining aren't you? Is it profitable?
We can safely say that his views on women and relationships were warped and twisted. It is unclear if he thought that women were inferior, but that isn't really relevant in the context that the guy was a fucking lunatic. And I feel confident in saying that any relationship he had with any woman, attractive or otherwise would have been warped by his views.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Back in my undergrad days we used to always hang out there on the weekends with friends who went to school at UCSB. They had a house on del playa, and I've been to that one liquor mart many times. It's pretty fucked up to think that kind of shit could have happened to any of us had we graduated 10 years later than we did.
On May 28 2014 08:12 Wombat_NI wrote: You can have the worst kind of racist/xenophobic/sexist/homophobic views, as long as you don't kill anyone from that group they become irrelevant?
Relatively irrelevant compared with murder, I'd say.
I dont keep track of all of those shootings in the US anymore. It happens so fucking often, like every 3-6 month?
I looked up some statistics on wikipedia. List of school shootings in the USA Apparently school shootings happen every week. There were 40 shootings alone in this year. Thats just so insane.
I like how he says "I've been thinking about how unfair my life has been..." while sitting in a beamer drinking a latte from Starbucks and wearing a snazzy track sweater. And it's not like he's super ugly or anything either. But he sure talks pretty weird, probably from thinking in isolation for so long. Either you spiral up into crazy brilliance, like Nietzsche or Van Gogh, or you spiral down into a psycho-kind-of-crazy.
After reading the stuff in the news, I was surprised to hear how soft-spoken and calm he is in his videos. Talking about watching "the beautiful sun descend behind the mountains." Then he proceeds to knife his roommates in their sleep. What a fucking loon.
On May 28 2014 17:26 PassionFruit wrote: Watched the beginning of two of his videos.
I like how he says "I've been thinking about how unfair my life has been..." while sitting in a beamer drinking a latte from Starbucks and wearing a snazzy track sweater. And it's not like he's super ugly or anything either. But he sure talks pretty weird, probably from thinking in isolation for so long. Either you spiral up into crazy brilliance, like Nietzsche or Van Gogh, or you spiral down into a psycho-kind-of-crazy.
After reading the stuff in the news, I was surprised to hear how soft-spoken and calm he is in his videos. Talking about watching "the beautiful sun descend behind the mountains." Then he proceeds to knife his roommates in their sleep. What a fucking loon.
Let's not forget Beethoven here. He remained single his entire life despite falling in love multiple times and there is no evidence that he ever had a physical relationship with a woman. Instead, he channeled his suffering and creative energies into some of the most sublime pieces of art music ever written.
Probably the absolute antithesis of this shithead Elliot Rodger. The guy keeps on mentioning how 'sophisticated' and 'intelligent' he is in his videos and manifesto, and yet I see none of that on display. The guy is a tremendous (shitty) actor, a truly deluded wannabe anti-hero, and an autistic narcissistic sociopath with a god-complex. But hey, at least he got his 15 minutes of fame, so there's that.
On May 28 2014 17:26 PassionFruit wrote: Watched the beginning of two of his videos.
I like how he says "I've been thinking about how unfair my life has been..." while sitting in a beamer drinking a latte from Starbucks and wearing a snazzy track sweater. And it's not like he's super ugly or anything either. But he sure talks pretty weird, probably from thinking in isolation for so long. Either you spiral up into crazy brilliance, like Nietzsche or Van Gogh, or you spiral down into a psycho-kind-of-crazy.
After reading the stuff in the news, I was surprised to hear how soft-spoken and calm he is in his videos. Talking about watching "the beautiful sun descend behind the mountains." Then he proceeds to knife his roommates in their sleep. What a fucking loon.
Let's not forget Beethoven here. He remained single his entire life despite falling in love multiple times and there is no evidence that he ever had a physical relationship with a woman. Instead, he channeled his suffering and creative energies into some of the most sublime pieces of art music ever written.
Probably the absolute antithesis of this shithead Elliot Rodger. The guy keeps on mentioning how 'sophisticated' and 'intelligent' he is in his videos and manifesto, and yet I see none of that on display. The guy is a tremendous (shitty) actor, a truly deluded wannabe anti-hero, and an autistic narcissistic sociopath with a god-complex. But hey, at least he got his 15 minutes of fame, so there's that.
It's obvious anyone can get nationwide recognition, have their writing de-facto published and largely publicized, and have its ideas debated on the news and on the internet (where almost any ideology can and will be defended), provided you make a qualifying sensational murder-spree.
That's the worst part of our culture that, even more than this guy's super-misogyny, seems likely to provoke narcissistic psychopaths to commit what are essentially acts of terrorism. Their cause, whether personal or political, is almost guaranteed promotion.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Yeah that's why it puzzled me. People are assholes on the internet. Some of those people are women. It's kind of sexist to assume they wouldn't be, women wouldn't be any different from men in this regard.....
It's weird that he felt it's necessary to point that out. It's totally obvious that would be the case :/
Also, what does that contribute as a point? What's it's relevance to this dude's murder spree?
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Yeah that's why it puzzled me. People are assholes on the internet. Some of those people are women. It's kind of sexist to assume they wouldn't be, women wouldn't be any different from men in this regard.....
It's weird that he felt it's necessary to point that out. It's totally obvious that would be the case :/
Also, what does that contribute as a point? What's it's relevance to this dude's murder spree?
Basically a meaningless contribution.
What is the whole point of the misogyny discussion then? What is the point in pointing that out and make 20pages of discussion if he was it or not? Ofc he was, but how is that relevant when it is so blatantly obvious?
On May 28 2014 16:22 SpikeStarcraft wrote: I dont keep track of all of those shootings in the US anymore. It happens so fucking often, like every 3-6 month?
I looked up some statistics on wikipedia. List of school shootings in the USA Apparently school shootings happen every week. There were 40 shootings alone in this year. Thats just so insane.
some of those don't really count though, e.g. "a student was shot with a BB gun while on the campus of Grant High School. School officials say the shooting happened while the student was in the locker room on Thursday. The student suffered minor injuries."
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Who said I'm even making a case. I'm just posting an image. Didn't even comment on it. Read up.
But thanks for making your own judgement on what I am apparently thinking and what my intentions are, if any.
I just took it to be an example of 'hey I can find some obnoxious posts on the internet and repost them to make a point'. Swear I've seen the same three YouTube comments time and time again to showcase some kind of male sympathy with the shooter which to me is disingenuous as fuck.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Who said I'm even making a case. I'm just posting an image. Didn't even comment on it. Read up.
But thanks for making your own judgement on what I am apparently thinking and what my intentions are, if any.
Love it. Just love it.
So if you weren't making a comment with the image, does that mean it's a no content post? What's the purpose of it unless you have something to say about it, or you mean it to imply something.
Obviously no one reading this thread actually believes you were 'just posting an image.' You chose that image because you had a commentary to make, whether it was written or not. We're not daft.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Who said I'm even making a case. I'm just posting an image. Didn't even comment on it. Read up.
But thanks for making your own judgement on what I am apparently thinking and what my intentions are, if any.
Love it. Just love it.
Plz, you didn't post it there for no reason and since you won't explain why, I'm going to fill in the blanks. If you don't explain yourself, people will make their own judgments. Stop acting like a kicked puppy whe you know you posted that with a very specific purpose and now you aren't getting the exact response you wanted.
On May 28 2014 09:03 Psychobabas wrote: I'll just leave this here:
I don't really understand the point of posting this, or it's relevance....
It's to show there are mean girls on twitter. Really I thought that movie Mean Girls took care of that years ago, but apparently he felt we needed reminding.
Never heard of that film. So...
Not really making a good case for the total non-sequitur post of bitchy women on twitter. Was there ever any doubt they existed?
Who said I'm even making a case. I'm just posting an image. Didn't even comment on it. Read up.
But thanks for making your own judgement on what I am apparently thinking and what my intentions are, if any.
Love it. Just love it.
I know it's pretty shocking that when you post a provocative imagine without explaining yourself, people assume the obvious. Geeze save us the victimisation.
Was the guy really short though? I read he's 5'9 which is 175cm and that's not short. Not tall, but not short either.
When I was in the army there were a couple of crazy people with some psychopathic views or tendencies. Was always a funny feeling when we were like 60 people holding a rifle at the shooting range and there were these guys among us. Anyway, nothing ever happened because these people were always openly expressing their anger, they were always letting it all out so to say.
The much worse and much more unpredictable people are those that let the anger stay inside and let it breed over the years. Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room.
You make it sound like we're neanderthals who should just go outside and beat things with a stick.
There's plenty of ways to express yourself, and I'm almost certain you're facing almost zero oppression in your life.
This reeks of more MRA bullshit. All you're doing is tying in pseudo-scientific evolutionary hogwash to justify the 'boys will be boys' defense. "It's just natural that men express themselves physically and violently!" If you want to take out aggression, go to the gym. Or simply relax instead. Either way, don't frame it as if it's an involuntary situation.
Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room.
Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already.
People get angry, people have aggression and people should have outlets and express it. It isn't 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already.
People get angry, people have aggression and people don't have outlets to express it. It is 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
What the fuck does that even mean? Natural agression being repressed? Is this some pseudoscience argument where someone claims that the modern world represses a mans "need" to fight? Does anyone make that argument with a straight face?
On May 28 2014 16:22 SpikeStarcraft wrote: I dont keep track of all of those shootings in the US anymore. It happens so fucking often, like every 3-6 month?
I looked up some statistics on wikipedia. List of school shootings in the USA Apparently school shootings happen every week. There were 40 shootings alone in this year. Thats just so insane.
some of those don't really count though, e.g. "a student was shot with a BB gun while on the campus of Grant High School. School officials say the shooting happened while the student was in the locker room on Thursday. The student suffered minor injuries."
10 school shootings this year with at least one death is still an every other week occurence in the US.
On May 29 2014 01:38 Jibba wrote: There's plenty of ways to express yourself, and I'm almost certain you're facing almost zero oppression in your life.
Life is full of oppression. You have to respect the laws, you have to be polite, you have to work (or at least to earn money in some way) at some point people just get mad if they don't find some form of happiness or if they don't feel respected. Now obviously they are not always killing people to express their anger but still, i guess you get the idea. For some people ranting to their friends or on the internet (i.e: complaining) or even fighting back is just not enough because it will just get you more trouble most of the time. So they just wait... and explode :/
On May 29 2014 01:49 Boblion wrote: Introverts and psychorigid people don't express their anger in the same way than most people. They just EXPLODE.
Well I'm 95% sure I'm an introvert, I'm betting a significant percentage on TL are as well. But I can tell you if I get angry I try to resolve it rather than let it build up, its just not a smart thing to let it continue under the surface. And I've had my fair share of anger inducing moments!
Really time is actually the best healer. A day of sleep can work wonders, and after a week most issues simply evaporate
edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it!
Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
Such people are mainly a product of a society where natural male aggression has basically no breathing room.
Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already.
People get angry, people have aggression and people should have outlets and express it. It isn't 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
Lol? Jesus. Become an adult already.
People get angry, people have aggression and people don't have outlets to express it. It is 'natural male aggression' being oppressed.
What the fuck does that even mean? Natural agression being repressed? Is this some pseudoscience argument where someone claims that the modern world represses a mans "need" to fight? Does anyone make that argument with a straight face?
It is my opinion and yes, I am having it with a straight face.
The oppression of male aggression is something that was in place since the beginning of time and is important for a society to function properly.
However, there are certain factors in modern society that have tilted the natural balance. Can we draw any conclusions from that? - Better not.
edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it!
It is only oppressive when you start to think and realize that many people who climb the social ladder are "cheating"/lying and that the amount of "regulatory paperwork" is getting more important everyday.
Kaczynski, another guy who got really mad (but for different reason even if he couldn't get along with women) had something like 180 IQ. Do you think he was just stupid ?
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
edit: Those things you're talking about, respecting laws and so on are really not that big a deal as you think . I don't think laws are really oppressive, most of the time those laws exist to protect your rights and at worst its just a bunch of regulatory paperwork. Work sucks but I think most people get used to it!
It is only oppressive when you start to think and realize that many people who climb the social ladder are "cheating"/lying and that the amount of "regulatory paperwork" is getting more important everyday.
Kaczynski, another guy who got really mad (but for different reason even if he couldn't get along with women) had something like 180 IQ. Do you think he was just stupid ?
Well I just try to think of the average person, most of the people, and whether in their day to day lives what is more likely to cause them to be angry. Relationship issues, friendship problems, struggles at work, maybe personal crises...all of these seem much more probable than issues with the law, because the law for the most part does not interfere with your life except in special cases like maybe wanting to grow marijuana or say if you were a woman and wanted to be a prostitute but you see its illegal everywhere.
People lying and cheating on the way to the top is depressing too, but in comparison with a person's day to day life these are really overarching concerns about how society is ordered, for the most part people don't think about this.
And of course I am not implying that Kaczynski is dumb, he is obviously smarter than I could ever be if we trust the validity of IQ tests. But even smart people can make mistakes, they can be overwhelmed by their emotions just like anyone else. The human mind isn't really designed to be rational, that's the main problem. You have to try hard to make wise decisions and not act impulsively, and of course some people have brains that are wired differently from others in which its more difficult to restrain one's anger. Some may think they can handle it and then be mistaken
There is no 'root' to this problem and there is no reason to create a myth about the 'oppressed man' who can't exercise his beastly needs in our modern times or some crap like that. We're not apes for gods sake. We're living in societies of millions and billions of people. It's a statistical necessity that some people crack, there is no way to prevent that. And even if society was the problem, you won't get everyone laid and you can't prevent everyone from getting bullied.
It's way more reasonable to start looking for ways on how to stop people from putting their plans into motion, and among the most important would be as I said before, do something about Americas insane gun culture.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
Things can be resolved by physical fighting, but if they are not ultimately caused (primarily) by that primeval urge as you put it, then its enough to discount the theory that we were initially debating. That is, there isn't a timer on the male psyche in which male aggression (naturally building on its own) is released and we have to find opportunities to release it in some safe setting. So that's all I would say...its just a fine distinction
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Did you read the manifesto? It's basically his life story. Based on the response, I will assume no. Semantics matter. It indicates clearly which groups his aggressions were aimed at. Rodgers' hate gravitated towards attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to. Again, why does that matter? Those pretty girls were attracted to the guys who bullied him in the past.
What is "your community"? I didn't know I was a part of a PUA community. I have researched it greatly so I know what it is and what it isn't. Arrogance in ignorance isn't bliss. PUA is a social skillset to attract women better. That's it.
If you must know, I believe in progressing women's liberties. There are situations where there are clear oppression against women IN GENERAL and society should come together to break down those barriers. This isn't it.
Also throwing around passive aggressive insults doesn't give an opinion more value. It's a poor response and result in looking childish.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that.
Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
And yet its so effective.
Only at showing the person making the statement have a very limited understanding of what took place during that time and is making grand assumptions based on that.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
And yet its so effective.
Only at showing the person making the statement have a very limited understanding of what took place during that time and is making grand assumptions based on that.
Or someone that knows the topic well enough to be able to recap it in a simple way.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that.
Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
Eh, I'm not sure that pickup stuff is about getting women pregnant. I think it's more about getting laid. If your goal was to have lots of offspring, your best bet is probably to get a graduate degree, be in amazing shape and health etc through lots of effort, and then donate to a sperm bank. Do anything and everything to boost your stats so that you're more likely to be used. You could have like 10+ kids this way, and they'll be well cared for! In america if you're under 6' tall this isn't an option but otherwise it's probably your best bet.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
...and I know dozens of people from dating communities who care about becoming better people with the premise that to be attractive you need to be attractive to your self more than anything else. Hell, there are insane differences between American and European communities and even huge regional differences depending on which people are most active behind the scenes. Does that mean it's full of saints? Of course not.
In fact, I know no other "community" that's as diverse as various pickup- and dating communities. You can find literally all ages, professions and backgrounds in one place.
The only common ground all pickup communities share is "I want to be more satisfied with the relationships I have with women". Any single claim that adds to this isn't shared by everyone involved, there are literally hundreds of ways and ideas on how to go about this common goal. And yes, it's safe to say that as a whole things have evolved way past "I want to get laid" as the primary common goal.
On May 29 2014 02:00 Xiphos wrote: Well technically, there have been increase law of decreasing "horse plays" in playgrounds so that boys don't fight against each other.
And the agression is inside all men. Boys at young age are born to rough other boys. You mentionned that people should grow "up". Well let's look at history shall we? Majority of the world leaders have been involved/declared war in one way or another and the majority of men joined the leader in his conquest. So you are pretty much fighting against 6 thousands + years of genetics of all of your ancestors when you hear "Stop fighting."
Yeah going to gym helps to vent it out but that's akin to having sex without a partner, masturbation. That's why sports are created to deplete this primeval urges.
I think with world history you have to really ask whether those people (even if mostly, if not all, were men) went to war just because they wanted to fight each other due to some primeval urge, or whether it was more because they wanted power, land, to spread some religion in a holy war, or something else. I think I agree that generally men seem to have a tendency to be attracted to explosions, guns, war, etc. when you look around in society today. Whether its nature or nurture I don't want to begin to address as I have no idea at this point. But that is different from being inherently violent, just like playing violent video games is different from a person actually being violent in real life and wanting to commit the crimes he commits in GTA V.
I think kids get into fights because they want to be seen as important in order to feel safe, or they have problems at home, and it leads to these situations. Not necessarily because they really want to fight for the sake of it - at least we'd need some better evidence for that
It's a men's ego.
World War 1 was exploded purely due to the partie's involve's ego that they thought of going to war as "glorious". So yeah gaining powers, land, etc. is all nice because it diplays who have...for the lack of better word, "dick". There are other ways to show who is better through non-violent matters such as who have more money in the bank. But however for the 95% of the world's history have been based upon physical fighting so you gotta be reasonable about it.
That is one of the grossest over simplification of WW1 I have ever read, without any of the nuance or detailed necessary truely explain the actions of several nations over the span of several years.
And yet its so effective.
On May 29 2014 02:43 Nyxisto wrote:
On May 29 2014 02:39 r.Evo wrote:
On May 28 2014 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On May 28 2014 07:34 [X]Ken_D wrote:
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that.
Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
Eh, I'm not sure that pickup stuff is about getting women pregnant. I think it's more about getting laid. If your goal was to have lots of offspring, your best bet is probably to get a graduate degree, be in amazing shape and health etc through lots of effort, and then donate to a sperm bank. Do anything and everything to boost your stats so that you're more likely to be used. You could have like 10+ kids this way, and they'll be well cared for! In america if you're under 6' tall this isn't an option but otherwise it's probably your best bet.
So getting women pregnant isn't getting laid......mkay
And men wants choices to who they impregnate, there goes the sperm bank.
The problem is not that people get mad. They do and there are outlets to vent your agression and frustration. Society never has been any more liberal and the opposite of oppressive.
Those are people that dont know how to defend themselves properly so they lash out by grabbing a gun and paying people back for the "injustice" they perceive.
In my opinion the option to get a gun and shoot people is just way too easy and too "clean." You dont really get your hands dirty and you dont need physical strength. People always say "bad people will find a way to get a gun" but most of those are high school kids, introverts with low body strength. They would never be able to get a gun from an illegal source. In Germany i have no idea where to get a gun illegally and i would probably get in trouble in the process of finding out. If your friends or relatives dont have a gun, i dont see any way for a high school kid to get a gun. Make stricter laws for the sake of your children. Then people who get mad just have to choose other options to vent their agression. And if they are not strong enough to start a physical fight they just need to learn to suck it up. Its just crazy to think that its more convenient to get a gun and shoot instead of getting over the cruel stuff society does to you.
And how often does someone break into your house and you need to defend yourself? You get yourself into more trouble if you interfere and do you really want to shoot at a living person? just let them have your stuff in the rare case someone robs you and walk away with your life and dont take the 50/50 chance to draw a gun. Why would you put your life on the line? just let the cops handle it. And its even more rare that people come at you with the intention to kill you. It just doesnt make any sense whatsoever. I think its just an ego issue. I need to be able to protect myself and my family and thats why everybody needs to be armed. Just chill and dont provoke shit and you're chances to survive are probably better.
On the one side some people are mentally so weak but so lethal when you give them a gun. Guns dont make your weak mentality strong. You're so scared so you get a gun, just be strong and courageous and face a robber without being armed. He wont feel threatened, nobody has to die. Police will catch him sooner or later. End of story.
On May 29 2014 01:49 Boblion wrote: Introverts and psychorigid people don't express their anger in the same way than most people. They just EXPLODE.
The character Lester Nygaard in the current TV series Fargo is a prime example of anger being held back for too long until it all explodes.
So is Elliot Rodger. His way of seeing himself as the supreme gentleman is an indicator for how hard he was trying to "fit in". When his surroundings didn't appreciate his "effort", anger started building up inside him. He couldn't release his anger because he was still the supreme gentleman after all. The only way to release his anger was total apocalypse.
This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
He murdered people cause he was a crazy nutjob, not cause he was frustrated. There's plenty of frustrated dudes and they don't go shooting people.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
On May 28 2014 01:47 Xiphos wrote: 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?
So far, I'm 60 page into the manifesto. From what I've seen so far, I would not say he is a "misogynist" at all. In fact, I would argue he wasn't misogynist. What nobody mentioned is the girls he hated were all attractive girls. He didn't hate the plain or ugly girls. He just didn't talk about them. The reason is it was the attractive girls were with the guys who constantly bullied him. He associated the attractive girl as reinforcement to the bullying as they just watch it happen or sometimes enjoyed it as their boyfriend showed off in front of them. From there, any guys who were good with girls such as PUA, correlated to his bullying. In short, he hated attractive girls and guys who girls were attracted to.
However, calling it "misogyny", pushes feminist agenda better.
What kind of stupid asshattery is this?
He only cared about sleeping with attractive women. He spoke with an insane amount of disrespect towards all women, feeling entitled to sleep with them. That's the kind of shit PUA propagates, and why that community is looked down upon (even though it seems like 1/3 of TLers want to call themselves PUA now.)
The semantics you're trying to play in order to defend your community is absurd. He viewed all women - not just attractive women - as inferior to men and himself deserving of their affection. He was concentrated on attractive women because he wanted one, but that doesn't mean he didn't share the same disrespectful views towards women that PUA does in general. Hell, anyone, both men and women, who talks about being in the 'friend zone' is sharing some level of that disrespect.
And stop it with this 'feminist agenda' shit. You have zero idea what you're talking about. Stopping sexually-related violence against women should be labeled 'society agenda.'
Proclaiming that pickup- or dating related communities promote "disrespect towards all women" and "entitlement to sleeping with them" is like saying "gaming communities promote sitting in your basement and getting fat". It's generalized crap promoted by people with a superficial knowledge of a community who have zero interest in a fair or objective perspective because of their agendas.
this whole pickup stuff is the most cringe worthy crap humanity has every produced. It degrades women to some kind of hunting treasure and everyone I've met who identified himself with said 'community' was among the most awkward people I've ever seen.
If you break everything down to core. Everything men does is to leave a legacy, primarily through offspring. Every men wants to procreate with the best option to him. The best option are ofc the physique of a girl. Now there are some training that teaches a man to improve himself in order to augment his chances with an attractive girl. Nothing wrong with that.
Now in the modern society, women don't want to settle down but still enjoy the experience of being swooned by an attractive guy so most of the time, there aren't any procreation involved.
That's some pretty mad generalizations yo. There are lots of men that don't want to procreate at all and plenty that are not attracted to women, and still more that value things other than appearance. please don't reduce my gender to a bunch of horny dogs. And i just cant believe the motives you've laid out for the other 50% of the population is accurate.
And whats this reservoir of violence you think human men have? is there anything to support this? because most studies seem to indicate that violence is always a result of outside influence and without negative outside influence there is no violence. Additionally "getting out your violence" according to this inherent need should reduce the violence in the future but studies show that people committing violent acts are more likely to do so again in the future. I personally feel evolved enough that I don't have unprovoked urges of violence that I cant control but if people cant control their testosterone better than rottweilers maybe they should be neutered like them.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
If you read his manifesto he wouldn't actually go up to women and ask them to go up with him or anything of the sorts EVER.
He would just randomly wander town for absurd amounts of time (6 hours!) or lounge around in random restaraunts and expect women to come up with him and tell him to have sex with him and get extremely angry when it doesn't happen.
You can really tell he was extremely socially awkward and instead of trying to fix his problem he decided to blame everyone else including the other men for "taking what he deserved", he thought that he was a perfect human being while everyone else was completely wrong.
His belief was that women should throw themself on him because he "deserved" it and they should have no control over their own sex lives whatsoever. He goes so far to say that women should be locked up and be forced to only give sex to guys who "deserve it" and fuck everyone else and that he'd be the supreme ruler of this government and the reason it can't happen is because women have too many rights in this country over their own god damn body.
He's was utterly fucked up in the head and he wrote down every single fucked up thought he ever had.
Being a virgin at 22 isn't even that uncommon it's not like he was 40 years old you can't even make a porn until you're 18.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
not if you concede to the idea that even if some hot girl was fucking him, he'd still snap. if you don't think that's the case, then I'm unsure how you'd try to convince everyone that forty year old virgins are out there slaughtering people daily.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
He visited bodybuilding forums. --> Abolish bodybuilding! He was of aristocratic descent. --> Take a closer look at those aristocrats! His father is a director of violent movies. --> Put an end to violence in movies! His parents got divorced. --> Punish people who get divorced! He visited PUA forums. --> Those creepers. Put an end to this! He used a gun to kill people. --> Ha! It's the guns! Abolish guns! He used a knife to kill people. --> Of course! It's the knives! Abolish knives! He was very lonely. --> Put lonely people under observation! He is half Asian. --> It's the Asians. I knew it! He is autistic--> Autistic people are killers. Lock them up! Girls didn't respect him. --> It's feminism! Abolish!
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
On May 29 2014 03:05 Plansix wrote: This thread has degraded into one of the creepiest things I have read all week. A discussion about a mass shooting degrades down to "it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find."
Why are people looking for grains of truth in the clearly crazy mans writings? The guy was clearly nuts and the reason that women might have rejected him was likely that he was a creepy fuck. No one like a creeper.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep citing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
I feel sorry for him, to squander is good looks and good parentage (rich family, no?) just for killing random strangers. When I saw some of his posts, I could understand a little bit of his pain. I had not kissed a girl when I was 22, and was a virgin as well. At 26 now, I have learned to just be myself with the girls (and people in general, lol) - and that's for the best in the long run.
First noble truth of Buddhism - everybody suffers. If only he knew he isn't alone in his struggle, no matter how he viewed it, it might have lent itself to a non-violent outcome.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep citing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
I don't think anyone blames women or takes anything he said as facts about the world. But we can easily tell how he felt about women by reading what he wrote. And its frightening that he found similar minded communities to join.
"it my nature to try to knock up the hottest woman I can find." is a direct causation to the event.
He specifically murdered attractive girls because of his frustration.
No degradation, just a logical segway.
Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Really, this kid was just a perfect storm:
Asperger's Syndrome - Inability to socially mirror or relate to other people, pick up on social cues, etc.
Neglectful parenting - In his manifesto he relates stories about saving his younger brother when he was an infant from drowning while his parents were present in the home. In another he describes how he was left by himself outside a tourism stop by himself as a 4-year-old.
Narcissistic Hollywood Culture - He obsesses over his own looks, the looks of others. He wanted a perfect bombshell blonde. This kid was an awkward virgin but he was turning up his nose at 7s because he felt he deserved only the best. Insane entitlement due to a life of real privilege and a failure on his parents' part to instill loss or lack at a young age.
Bullying and Friendlessness - This goes beyond basic socially corrective teasing that you may get from peers growing up and gets labelled as bullying. This kid had no allies, no support structure. No parents to turn to, no shoulder to cry on. He was utterly alone and due to his pre-existing mental conditions, found it difficult to relate or understand other people. In fact, his own stepmother was cruel to him and took advantage of moments where he would admit weakness to her by comparing her to his much more socially adept brother (her biological son from what I gather).
All these factors combined in one individual to make someone so bitter, so eaten up with envy, that his only recourse was to recede into narcissism to shore up his incredibly fragile ego and eventually descend into megalomania, dehumanizing those he envied and those he saw as denying him the affection and attention he craved.
It wasn't just sex, and prostitution would not have helped him as his mind become more unhinged. This kid needed real human contact and love. Even by the end of his manifesto he decries sex and devolves into power fantasies about becoming a world conquering dictator who abolishes sex from the human race, making people breed only by artificial insemination. By this point he hated sex and saw it as a fundamental biological flaw in human nature, keeping people from true egalitarianism.
It wasn't that he was "born" to be lunatic was rather "created" to be one.
On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Dude, stop defending this person. It's a bad look. You are buying into the (bullshit/crazy) justifications of a mass murderer.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Dude, stop defending this person. It's a bad look. You are buying into the (bullshit/crazy) justifications of a mass murderer.
This is not an intellectually honest post, since I'm sure the mass murderer believed in gravity too but that doesn't mean we should disbelieve it, or arguing for gravity is "defending him"
that being said, you're still right, and the guy was clearly just a nutter. if "those problems" were alleviated, he'd still be a nutter. the only "problem" is that he's a nutter who shot some people imo
On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
On May 29 2014 03:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] Except he was crazy and that just happened to the thing he latched on to. If he had be accepted by some attractive woman, he still would have been nuts and unstable. His mental state is likely completely independent of his relationship status. Just like people with OCD don't really have a problem with germs, they condition just manifests that way.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Really, this kid was just a perfect storm:
Asperger's Syndrome - Inability to socially mirror or relate to other people, pick up on social cues, etc.
Neglectful parenting - In his manifesto he relates stories about saving his younger brother when he was an infant from drowning while his parents were present in the home. In another he describes how he was left by himself outside a tourism stop by himself as a 4-year-old.
Narcissistic Hollywood Culture - He obsesses over his own looks, the looks of others. He wanted a perfect bombshell blonde. This kid was an awkward virgin but he was turning up his nose at 7s because he felt he deserved only the best. Insane entitlement due to a life of real privilege and a failure on his parents' part to instill loss or lack at a young age.
Bullying and Friendlessness - This goes beyond basic socially corrective teasing that you may get from peers growing up and gets labelled as bullying. This kid had no allies, no support structure. No parents to turn to, no shoulder to cry on. He was utterly alone and due to his pre-existing mental conditions, found it difficult to relate or understand other people. In fact, his own stepmother was cruel to him and took advantage of moments where he would admit weakness to her by comparing her to his much more socially adept brother (her biological son from what I gather).
All these factors combined in one individual to make someone so bitter, so eaten up with envy, that his only recourse was to recede into narcissism to shore up his incredibly fragile ego and eventually descend into megalomania, dehumanizing those he envied and those he saw as denying him the affection and attention he craved.
It wasn't just sex, and prostitution would not have helped him as his mind become more unhinged. This kid needed real human contact and love. Even by the end of his manifesto he decries sex and devolves into power fantasies about becoming a world conquering dictator who abolishes sex from the human race, making people breed only by artificial insemination. By this point he hated sex and saw it as a fundamental biological flaw in human nature, keeping people from true egalitarianism.
It wasn't that he was "born" to be lunatic was rather "created" to be one.
I didn't realize freudian psychoanalysis was still around, even though it hasn't been practiced for decades. Dude, the thing you have to realize is that it is perfectly possible to be 'born' a lunatic. You're also creating a false dichotomy here by indicating that he CAN'T have been BOTH born with mental illness AND had an environment conducive to fostering his illness rather than treating it. Now, I'm not going to speculate about the extent to which Eliot Roger's problems were nature vs nurture, but everyone is shaped by both, and in significant amounts. To simply dismiss one or the other is flat out wrong.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Really, this kid was just a perfect storm:
Asperger's Syndrome - Inability to socially mirror or relate to other people, pick up on social cues, etc.
Neglectful parenting - In his manifesto he relates stories about saving his younger brother when he was an infant from drowning while his parents were present in the home. In another he describes how he was left by himself outside a tourism stop by himself as a 4-year-old.
Narcissistic Hollywood Culture - He obsesses over his own looks, the looks of others. He wanted a perfect bombshell blonde. This kid was an awkward virgin but he was turning up his nose at 7s because he felt he deserved only the best. Insane entitlement due to a life of real privilege and a failure on his parents' part to instill loss or lack at a young age.
Bullying and Friendlessness - This goes beyond basic socially corrective teasing that you may get from peers growing up and gets labelled as bullying. This kid had no allies, no support structure. No parents to turn to, no shoulder to cry on. He was utterly alone and due to his pre-existing mental conditions, found it difficult to relate or understand other people. In fact, his own stepmother was cruel to him and took advantage of moments where he would admit weakness to her by comparing her to his much more socially adept brother (her biological son from what I gather).
All these factors combined in one individual to make someone so bitter, so eaten up with envy, that his only recourse was to recede into narcissism to shore up his incredibly fragile ego and eventually descend into megalomania, dehumanizing those he envied and those he saw as denying him the affection and attention he craved.
It wasn't just sex, and prostitution would not have helped him as his mind become more unhinged. This kid needed real human contact and love. Even by the end of his manifesto he decries sex and devolves into power fantasies about becoming a world conquering dictator who abolishes sex from the human race, making people breed only by artificial insemination. By this point he hated sex and saw it as a fundamental biological flaw in human nature, keeping people from true egalitarianism.
It wasn't that he was "born" to be lunatic was rather "created" to be one.
I didn't realize freudian psychoanalysis was still around, even though it hasn't been practiced for decades. Dude, the thing you have to realize is that it is perfectly possible to be 'born' a lunatic. You're also creating a false dichotomy here by indicating that he CAN'T have been BOTH born with mental illness AND had an environment conducive to fostering his illness rather than treating it. Now, I'm not going to speculate about the extent to which Eliot Roger's problems were nature vs nurture, but everyone is shaped by both, and in significant amounts. To simply dismiss one or the other is flat out wrong.
Feels a bit like people are talking over each other - some good points being made. There isn't much we can do about nature, so I don't see a point in nature v. nurture debate.
On May 29 2014 01:38 Jibba wrote: You make it sound like we're neanderthals who should just go outside and beat things with a stick.
There's plenty of ways to express yourself, and I'm almost certain you're facing almost zero oppression in your life.
This reeks of more MRA bullshit. All you're doing is tying in pseudo-scientific evolutionary hogwash to justify the 'boys will be boys' defense. "It's just natural that men express themselves physically and violently!" If you want to take out aggression, go to the gym. Or simply relax instead. Either way, don't frame it as if it's an involuntary situation.
Most of the "oppression" discourse is narcissism, and very little else. What exactly makes you think you'd personally be capable of identifying "oppression" if it existed? Using feminist logic, after all, that oppression would be structural, embedded within a culture of assumptions that unknowingly marginalize a given segment of the population.
If you earnestly believe that to be the case, while also believing that within you is the ability to see all of the relevant structures for a discussion on "oppression," such that you can personality judge the validity of MRA claims as bullshit or not, then you are implicitly elevating yourself into a Godlike position. It's nothing more than narcissism.
And anyone believing themselves capable of attributing an event like this to a discernible cause is much the same.
Then why couldn't he manifest this anger at something else like a political movement or with other reasons.
Why specifically at attractive girls? The topic of his "burst" is important.
Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
On May 29 2014 03:19 Plansix wrote: [quote] Because he wa crazy and that is what he latched on to. You don't get to pick what you focus on when you are nuts. Other people have gone on killing sprees because their dog Sam told them to do it. The reason he killed all those people was because he was unstable and no one stopped him. It has very little to do with women.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
It’s important to state that Elliot Rodger was undoubtedly mentally unstable and required professional supervision. Diagnosed with Asperger’s, he clearly exhibited narcissistic and sociopathic traits that no doubt prevented him from empathizing with others. Nonetheless, his videos and writings do display an above-average intelligence and the propensity to connect with individuals in certain cases. He was not that much worse off than many socially awkward males who grew up isolated as teenagers, unable to perform well in social interactions. There are men who functioned lower than him, but were later able to successfully meet average-looking women and achieve intimacy with them.
Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder.
So the bottom line is that if he was able to get girls, his life would have been just happy enough to not do anything crazy, could've definitely help to alleviate those unnecessary death.
That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Agreed. The main point should be that treatment and intervention would have helped far more than the hope "that women being nice to him" would have improved his mental state. The real silver bullet would have been law enforcement stopping him before he was able to hurt anyone.
On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him.
On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
To quote the great Simon Phoenix: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes."
The kid was legitimately crazy. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that the TL community has a fairly high incidence of young men who have had (at one point or another) problems with women and dating. I highly doubt that many (if any) have had or acted upon the same kinds of psychotic urges that this kid did. You have to fix the crazy before you look at anything else.
On May 29 2014 03:41 Plansix wrote: [quote] Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him.
Such a black and white mentality.
In the sense that "we have a society that allows this kind of thing to happen and doesn't have the preventative measures in place to stop it before it starts", this is all our fault. We should always strive to do better as a country, even if we may not agree on what exactly we need to do in order to be better. In that sense, you are correct. Although he is the one who committed the actions, we as a society failed him when we didn't intercede before this happened. We didn't have enough screening, enough access to mental health resources, enough psychiatric interventions, whatever. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible to stop this kind of thing even if we spent a lot of effort to stop it, but we could have done more, and we didn't.
However, that does not excuse him from moral culpability even a tiny bit. Yes, we failed him by not locking him up and/or fixing him before this. But at the same time, he is the one who is responsible for his actions. Anyone who was dickish to him or whatever is not morally culpable. Their hands weren't on the trigger. His? Were.
He didn't shoot people based on some kind of logical extrapolation of who was nice to him or whatever. He shot people because he was a nutter. We failed to prevent this beforehand with a mental health interventions or stricter gun control or looser gun control or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that yeah, this guy was a nutter and he shot guys and it's not like you could reason with a nutter who's running around shooting guys.
Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
On May 29 2014 03:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] That's not correct. You are assuming that he had the ability to assess why he did the things he did. He was mentally unstable and clearly the person we should be trusting to assess what drove him to murder. It would be nice to think that his writings would provide a clear reason for his actions, but his views on reality were so warped and they can only provide a window into how sick he was.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
That's taking it too far. You make some fair points about his upbringing and the insanity of hollywood culture - but that's on his parents, and BOTH men and women, on society as a whole.
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote: Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement.
EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest.
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote: Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement.
EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest.
The difference is that this guy actually fairly represents their politics when they talk about politics. The most popular blog in the entire PUA community has Stormfront writers on their official blogroll if that doesn't drive the point home enough concerning how they think.
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote: Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
There's nothing extreme about most MRAs, frankly I find them considerably more reasonable than feminists. What is extreme is what the mainstream media is currently doing, which is using a tragedy to try to do a hatchet job on their political enemies.
On May 29 2014 07:02 DemigodcelpH wrote: Elliot Rodgers is an example of how MRA and PUA people think.
It's honestly shocking in that I've seen Elliot Rodgers in tons of articles I've read from others involved in those fringe groups. Mainly the disconnect with logic, the entitlement, the extreme politics (one popular blog likes to post pictures of nooses which are aimed at women who challenge them and minorities), and the destructive views toward "evil women".
To declare this one guy as an icon of MRAs and PUAs is like declaring the most vile radical feminist who believes all intercourse to be rape and that all men should die (you would be surprised by their prevalence) to be an icon of the feminist movement.
EDIT: The idea behind MRA isn't all that fringe to be honest.
The difference is that this guy actually fairly represents their politics when they talk about politics. The most popular blog in the entire PUA community has Stormfront writers on their official blogroll if that doesn't drive the point home enough concerning how they think.
I willingly admit that my experience with both PUA and MRA is limited however I think you and I must be getting very different hits on google.
EDIT: I find it kinda hilarious that the first hit on google if you search for "PUA stormfront blog" is a debate on stormfront about how the whole PUA movement is jewish.
Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
I think there is nothing specifically wrong with the idea in concept, but there appear to be some flaws with the culture and attitudes of a group of men who's sole purpose find easy ways to get laid. Its not that the group or the basic idea behind the group are inherently bad, but you have to ask yourself what sort of person that set if ideas is going to attract. If you go to their site, it gets into the non-sense pretty quickly. And its sleezy as fuck, but thats just my personal opinion.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
They don't degrade the women while they are trying to pick them up, thats not the plan. I would recommend going to the site and just browsing for a few minutes and seeing the non-sense in first person. They have lingo, like the same way people talk about SC2, with a "mid game" and weird phrases like "anchoring". Its super trashy and not really a healthy way to view relationships or sexual interaction as a game.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
That's taking it too far. You make some fair points about his upbringing and the insanity of hollywood culture - but that's on his parents, and BOTH men and women, on society as a whole.
"If women were nicer" is BS.
The point still remains if people even attempted to try in the first place.
He did assess it, he fully explained why he was planing to do it (and eventually went for it) in his writing explicitly with clear thinking process. His mental state wasn't that it was unstable, it was TOO stable. He was TOO stubborn to not look at any other means and was VERY close-minded individual.
Even lunatics can write clearly, it doesn't mean he didn't see the world in a warped way or anything he wrote was correct. R was crazy and anything he wrote needs to be views through that lens. Nothing can be take at face value. Women were not the cause of him doing what he did, it's just what he blamed.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
To quote the great Simon Phoenix: "You can't take away people's right to be assholes."
The kid was legitimately crazy. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume that the TL community has a fairly high incidence of young men who have had (at one point or another) problems with women and dating. I highly doubt that many (if any) have had or acted upon the same kinds of psychotic urges that this kid did. You have to fix the crazy before you look at anything else.
Yes but almost 90% of the people have experienced warmth or kindness from women/girls and it appears that he never got it.
Except he wasn't always a lunatic, if you read his manifesto, he clearly described at what moment in his life did he begin to exhibit his current behaviors.
Why do you keep suing the crazy man's writing as evidence? That thing is not fact or proof of anything. It is the rambling a of a sad, sick person who lost his mind and blamed women for the pain he was in. They were not the cause of him losing his grip. He was not driven to madness by women.
Because if those problems were alleviated, it plummets the chances of his killing. That's a fact.
And it was stated by himself that his step mother treated him very badly and during one incident in his camp, a girl treated him badly by pushing him around.
He grew up in a childhood where he was continually being neglected by his mother, his step-mother, and his female peers.
Those things have happened to other people and they did not go on killing sprees. If he had received effective mental services or law enforcement had stepped in earlier, he might have been stopped. If women had been nice to him(and we are assuming that what he wrote is true and not some elaborate set of lies) there is a good chance he would still have been unstable.
You seem really committed to proving to is that it was the fault of mean women that cause him to lose his mind.
I'm saying that if the women were a bit nicer to him, it could decrease the chance of him lashing out. To put in the nature vs nurture argument: Yeah in his nature, he might be a bit in the outlier in terms of "normality" but as long as the nurture doesn't exasperate those traits, this further decreases his ability to take action.
You can't argue against that.
There is also the possibility that women being nicer to him wouldn't make a damn bit of difference.
Well at least they've tried. If you didn't try in the first place, then you are an accomplice.
Plz son, the fault is all his. Don't try to pin this on anyone but him.
Such a black and white mentality.
In the sense that "we have a society that allows this kind of thing to happen and doesn't have the preventative measures in place to stop it before it starts", this is all our fault. We should always strive to do better as a country, even if we may not agree on what exactly we need to do in order to be better. In that sense, you are correct. Although he is the one who committed the actions, we as a society failed him when we didn't intercede before this happened. We didn't have enough screening, enough access to mental health resources, enough psychiatric interventions, whatever. Maybe it wouldn't have been possible to stop this kind of thing even if we spent a lot of effort to stop it, but we could have done more, and we didn't.
However, that does not excuse him from moral culpability even a tiny bit. Yes, we failed him by not locking him up and/or fixing him before this. But at the same time, he is the one who is responsible for his actions. Anyone who was dickish to him or whatever is not morally culpable. Their hands weren't on the trigger. His? Were.
He didn't shoot people based on some kind of logical extrapolation of who was nice to him or whatever. He shot people because he was a nutter. We failed to prevent this beforehand with a mental health interventions or stricter gun control or looser gun control or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that yeah, this guy was a nutter and he shot guys and it's not like you could reason with a nutter who's running around shooting guys.
At least you get that this problem could be prevented by outside sources.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
Yeah, I agree on all of those points, but I still don't see it as a "problem" or something that is as bad as it is made out to be. I have a good friend who got really into the PUA thing and was really good at it. I never got into it because I didn't want to be "that kind of guy" and I had my own image in my head of what I wanted. Still, I can't really deny that there's some truth to the fundamental premises of PUA methodology -- as ugly as it may be in some cases. Embrace it. Denigrate it. Ignore it. It doesn't really matter what you choose to do with it. Doesn't change the fact there's something of substance there.
I dont care about PUA as I stay away from men who practice it and women who fall for it. That being said, I am pretty sure none of us can judge why he became this fucked up but it seems likely that in a perfect society this wouldnt have happened. Unfortunately that is not the case so I am just sad he turned out this way and even more sad about his victims.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote: For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
I think someone brought up the idea that he represented the worst of that specific community and the discussion went from there.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
The guy who are doing it right aren't using what can be fairly called "pick-up tricks." There's more to it than that. The whole point anyway is to appeal to the more subconscious and emotional elements of the female psyche as opposed to her intellect because appealing to the intellect generally doesn't work anyway (which is the source of male frustration to begin with).
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
I think there is nothing specifically wrong with the idea in concept, but there appear to be some flaws with the culture and attitudes of a group of men who's sole purpose find easy ways to get laid. Its not that the group or the basic idea behind the group are inherently bad, but you have to ask yourself what sort of person that set if ideas is going to attract. If you go to their site, it gets into the non-sense pretty quickly. And its sleezy as fuck, but thats just my personal opinion.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
They don't degrade the women while they are trying to pick them up, thats not the plan. I would recommend going to the site and just browsing for a few minutes and seeing the non-sense in first person. They have lingo, like the same way people talk about SC2, with a "mid game" and weird phrases like "anchoring". Its super trashy and not really a healthy way to view relationships or sexual interaction as a game.
I have read the manosphere extensively. Synthesizing viewpoints is what I like to do. I have a couple problems with it, but not many. Much of what's unfolding in the manosphere is the future blossoming before you. It will be criticized and trimmed somewhat before it's done maturing, but stopping it will simply not be possible. And thank God for that.
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote: For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
Because virtually the entire mainstream media apparatus has turned the shooting into a discussion of MRAs and PUAs etc.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
Define "normal person".
How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
The guy who are doing it right aren't using what can be fairly called "pick-up tricks." There's more to it than that. The whole point anyway is to appeal to the more subconscious and emotional elements of the female psyche as opposed to her intellect because appealing to the intellect generally doesn't work anyway (which is the source of male frustration to begin with).
Outside of that, it reframes the 'I deserve a woman' into 'what do I have to offer to a woman?'. At least that's what I took from my brief dipping in in my youth.
I don't see anything wrong with it if you cherry pick what parts help you pursue a mutually beneficial romantic life. Yeah you might perceive some of it as manipulative or gimmicky, but all human interaction is manipulative to some degree.
On May 29 2014 08:21 Wombat_NI wrote: For I think the third time, regardless of your opinions on it either way, why is PUA being brought in?
The guy sat in public areas for hours waiting for women to magically approach him, please find me literature from that community that advocates that kind of lazy entitlement. Coincidentally weren't some of his posts located on a website called 'PUAhate' or something?
People are projecting. Also, there are some people with really weird views and this incident has become their soap box. I think a page ago someone said that if only women were nicer to him, this guy who has never felt affection from a woman (a view based on "evidence" in the form of that rambling manifesto), none of this would happen.
Sometimes all the PUA/pseudo-psychological analysis/natural male aggression theories just seem to be intellectualised camouflage for sympathy for Eliot.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Societally people should be nicer, especially during the emotionally difficult teenage years. The amount of bullying that is allowed to go on is sad sometimes, be it by the lack of censure from peers or from people in positions of authority.
That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
I'm taking all of his writing with a huge grain of salt. He clearly didn't have a solid grasp on human interaction and the "slights" that he received from women may have just been reactions to his ham fisted attempts to interact with them.
On May 29 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote: Can someone please explain what is so "wrong" about PUA stuff? If dudes want to get better at getting laid, that is their prerogative. If their methods expose some ugly truths about some women, what is the big deal?
It's degrading,pathetic, people who do this stuff are usually super weird, and as intelligent human beings we should probably not spent most of our free time on the art of how to screw other people?^^
Also the image most "pick-up artists" have of women is outright ridiculous, to say the least.
If it were degrading, presumably it wouldn't work. Or are you suggesting it doesn't work? Or are you suggesting something else about women?
What I meant by that was that the whole PUA thing is degrading women because it's turning them into some kind of hunting treasure. Why not just act like a normal person when you're talking to opposite sex? I've never met a smart women that didn't think that all these pick-up tricks are totally ridiculous.
Define "normal person".
How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
She thinks that its all "jokes" because of social medias, popular article website, and blogs tends to shame on men trying to improve themselves. So she doesn't want to fail their standards. This means she doesn't know much about how the concepts works so her opinion on it can only be discredited.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. .
Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. .
Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
Au contraire sir, it helps for long term relationship as well.
The techniques is all about being interesting to her. Some people can do this for short burst of duration but if you manage to keep it for a long term, then you will certainly be an excellent boyfriend, a riveting husbands, and a fun parent (to the future kids).
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women. .
Dunno. Depends what you are breaking down into a science. I would submit that PUA does not break down long term relationship into a science. That doesn't seem to be the end goal as far as I can tell. The repeated and highlighted end-goal seems to be a string of one-night stands. I think "socializing with women" is too generous for what PUA intends to do. The focus is much more narrow, unless temporary seduction is the only form of socialization that has existed since ancient times.
Well that's the rub. The general objective of the PUA is to get laid as quickly as possible with as many women as possible. That objective generally is inconsistent with a long-term relationship, because relationships that are built upon sex typically aren't built to last. Still, it doesn't change the fact that PUA techniques are useful for engaging women (again, because there's some truth to their underpinnings) and putting yourself in a situation to have a long term relationship so long as you foster that relationship properly (ie avoid the one-night stands and quick sex).
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote: That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
PUA is as much a science as astrology...
I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA.
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote: That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
PUA is as much a science as astrology...
I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA.
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote: That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
PUA is as much a science as astrology...
I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA.
On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote: That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear.
There are people who live with less supportive families in gut-wrenching poverty who manage to become good people. His life was hard and its sad it was that way. However, there are people with far greater challenges in life who manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
I am as sympathetic to him and his family for their suffering, but he did killed people who did nothing to him and were only going about their day. He took his suffering out on others, which is not acceptable.
The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
Humanity...All of my suffering on this world has been at the hands of humanity, particularly women. It has made me realize just how brutal and twisted humanity is as a species. All I ever wanted was to fit in and live a happy life amongst humanity, but I was cast out and rejected, forced to endure an existence of loneliness and insignificance, all because the females of the human species were incapable of seeing the value in me.[...]
and on for 141 pages. I won't be reading or even skimming the whole thing, but in the glut of bad reporting on this man's motivations and life, even the first few pages will give you a better understanding. http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf
And for all of you throwing "PUA" out there, this man's affected by quite a different culture.
On May 29 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote: The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
what do you mean 'that we used to'. such treatment has never existed. Even our woefully inadequate treatment of mental illness is light-years ahead of what it was even a decade ago. Don't get me wrong, I think our treatment of mental illness is godawful, but to say that it was any better at ANY point in time is very wrong.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
PUA is as much a science as astrology...
I really didn't want to get into the whole science argument, but PUA does seem to be based on some pretty bunk pseudoscience. It sounds really good and even looks good on paper. But when tested, it seems to fall apart(from the articles I could find on Neuro-linguistic programming) The fact that the idea of Neuro-linguistic programming was created by a guy who wrote self help books and a college professor, who later then sold on the open market as another form of self help program, tells me a lot about the science behind the PUA.
On May 29 2014 08:59 [X]Ken_D wrote:
On May 29 2014 08:40 Wombat_NI wrote: That said to blame those individuals seems way off to me. From skimming his writings I'm not even sure he was bullied, a lot of it seemed disproportionate in how he reacted to perceived slights.
Bullies taped his head to the desk. They tossed food at him. They took his school stuff and ran off with it. He was far smaller than everyone else so naturally he was a target. It didn't help that he wasn't socially normal too.
Similar stuff happened to me in school and I came out fine. It's mean and sad that it happened to him, but not extra-ordinary or anything that thousands of others go through and manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
That comes off terribly conceited and self-centered. You were not diagnosed with Asperger either, I'm assuming. But yeah, let's keep acting like he's the only intrinsic cause of all this suffering. Maybe you had the fortune of that one friend who was with you through it all. Or a family member that you were close to. This guy was all alone, all this time, that much is clear.
There are people who live with less supportive families in gut-wrenching poverty who manage to become good people. His life was hard and its sad it was that way. However, there are people with far greater challenges in life who manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
I am as sympathetic to him and his family for their suffering, but he did killed people who did nothing to him and were only going about their day. He took his suffering out on others, which is not acceptable.
No one in this thread is saying taking out suffering on others is acceptable. We need to do a better job to teach our future generation values that the shooter clearly lacked. We cannot police everyone. Even when the police visited him, he was able to pass as being harmless.
On May 29 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote: The bigger issue that people are dancing around is how woefully inadequate our society has become at dealing with and treating the mentally ill. We don't have the institutions to handle these issues that we used to.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
What about prostitution?
I think you are thinking of a wife lol
No. That is not what a husband/wife relationship is about.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
On May 29 2014 10:35 barbsq wrote: am I the only one who keep seeing PUA as permission to use animals?
somehow i've never used/heard PUA = pickup artist before reading this thread.
I take it you have never visited the dating thread of read girl blogs for years hell, even been on the internet that long :D jk, but you avoided the worst of the internet in all seriousness
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
On May 29 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote: PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
It cuts both ways. Let's keep in mind that PUA is reactionary.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
Let me know when I can get my PhD in Comedic science. Sounds like a blast to be honest.
On May 29 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote: PUA is something 16 year olds of the 90's generation do after they've watched too much Californication, please fellow TLers above the age of 20, treat your fellow human beings (especially female ones) like they're actual persons :x
PUA treats females way better than the average being. A part of PUA is to judge a women by her character instead of her looks. This have a double effect. One to get rid of being nervous to talk to an attractive girl, the other is to truly connect with her and understand her psychology and essentially becoming her psychiatrist to get through life.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
Let me know when I can get my PhD in Comedic science. Sounds like a blast to be honest.
There are many improv clubs and comedic workshop around. Just check your local listings.
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
On May 29 2014 08:23 Xiphos wrote: How attractive are those "smart women"?
My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
Art and science are not mutually exclusive my friend.
They interrelate. For example in terms of music, many people would hate the "mainstream" music because of their easy to play tunes, the bad vocalist, very repetitive choruses as oppose to orchestra music that have much more complex composition with performers coming from prestigious musical backgrounds.
Or you can even objectively justify a motion picture by the script, the acting, the cinematography, and the overall direction.
Also it is even artistic for people to design ergonomic chairs, buildings, and inventions.
On May 29 2014 08:27 Plansix wrote: [quote] My fiancee is quite attractive and she thinks they are all jokes. She laughed when I brought it up earlier today. I don't consider myself super abnormal, but I never felt the need to get into pseudoscience like "Neuro-linguistic programming" to get women to talk to me. I just did it the old fashion way.
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
Art and science are not mutually exclusive my friend.
They interrelate. For example in terms of music, many people would hate the "mainstream" music because of their easy to play tunes, the bad vocalist, very repetitive choruses as oppose to orchestra music that have much more complex composition with performers coming from prestigious musical backgrounds.
Or you can even objectively justify a motion picture by the script, the acting, the cinematography, and the overall direction.
Also it is even artistic for people to design ergonomic chairs, buildings, and inventions.
You are using the word science in an incredibly loose and general way. I've no idea what your examples are saying either - that people have preferences for different music genres? That artistic people can be investors?
You've also avoided the point on scientific papers or study of PUA. Or any scientific consensus on it. I'm not even sure how you can fit PUA into a scientific model.
On May 29 2014 08:37 [X]Ken_D wrote: You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
What about prostitution?
Do you think prostitutes actually love someone immediately after payment?
I would say since the beginning there were a few men who were just far better socializing with women than other men. In ancient times, combine with wealth and the amount of women they go through, their social skills with women are vastly superior. In modern times with PUA, it is broken down to science where it is accessible to every men who choose to learn it. You lose nothing by learning it, but you have much to gain if you do. Relationships become more exciting and it helps make more friends too. It appeals to more than just women.
Elliot Rodgers tried PUA without much effort and failed miserably. You can't just pay money and immediately be good at PUA. The same as you can't pay women to love you. It takes effort.
Allright this is where I feel like I need to step in a bit. Been reading this thread a lot, and there's a lot of bullshit being thrown around as fact when really it's just opinion (pseudoscience is a generous word to even throw around the concept of "natural male aggression").
But this strikes me as just plain bullshit. I am fairly certain there's nothing even remotely scientific about PUA. I mean, in theory it's quantifiable to test whether individuals who go through a training program of some kind exhibit improvement in a specific task, and it's possible to quantify and compare the quality of different training programs themselves. I strongly, strongly suspect that there's been no such study.
You can attempt to build training programs from scientifically derived principles, but again I strongly suspect there's very, very little quantified scientific evidence to back up the ideas that PUA is constructed from. They're probably just based off of anecdotal experience, and some people's pseudoscientific ideas about the evolutionary psychology of female humans.
So basically you are disagreeing because you don't know anything about the subject.
No I'm disagreeing because I am reasonably familiar with the scientific process, and the burden of proof for claiming that something is supported by evidence obtained using the scientific method rests with those making the claim.
PUA reeks of something built on pseudoscience, and is basically analogous to how ancient Greek philosophers constructed beliefs about the universe from "a-priori reasoning" combined with anecdotal experiences.
But prove me wrong.
Provide your citable studies, good sir.
"PUA" in essence is just marketing yourself to a girl.
Its about applying and adapting concepts from marketing classes into everyday conversations.
Its about framing your flaws into strength and amplifying your strength to maximize your self-worth.
Another side of "PUA" is also learning how to be a good comedian.
Comedians attracts people due to their logical connection and observation and use soothing voices to drawing a crowd.
Comedians such as Louis CK practiced hundreds of hours before he puts on a special. He is practicing to hold people's attention to him and maximizing his charm and charisma.
Both field of marketing and comedic science have been developed to an immense extend. And PUA is simply taking those concepts into conversations.
If you want "scientific evidence", go read on marketing books and listen to how comedians develop their own hour with all sort of tricks and techniques with pre-written materials.
EDIT:
Also politicians also studies the art of wordsmithing by persuading voters to vote for him instead of the other candidate.
And hey since your name have "Stallin" in it, I'm surprised that you are questioning the art of persuasion.
You've not explained how PUA is a science, and resorted to personal attacks.
Again, how is anything in PUA scientific in the sense that there is a science of physics, or psychology? If there is, please show us the peer reviewed articles of PUA sciencetists. Or any behavioral scientist who endorses PUA.
You seem to be missing that point.
So I've did explain it and those "personal attacks" that you speaks off further amplifies and support this science that you want.
If your explanation is a comparison to "comedic science" then I'd like to see scientific papers on this comedic science as well. You also don't seem to be consistent since you use the term "art of persuasion". So is this an art or a science?
Art and science are not mutually exclusive my friend.
They interrelate. For example in terms of music, many people would hate the "mainstream" music because of their easy to play tunes, the bad vocalist, very repetitive choruses as oppose to orchestra music that have much more complex composition with performers coming from prestigious musical backgrounds.
Or you can even objectively justify a motion picture by the script, the acting, the cinematography, and the overall direction.
Also it is even artistic for people to design ergonomic chairs, buildings, and inventions.
You are using the word science in an incredibly loose and general way. I've no idea what your examples are saying either - that people have preferences for different music genres? That artistic people can be investors?
You've also avoided the point on scientific papers or study of PUA. Or any scientific consensus on it. I'm not even sure how you can fit PUA into a scientific model.
I've already defined what PUA is and how it is a constituent of other sciences repackaged into one. I've also explained how the other sciences are proven in multiple of levels in history to work ergo proving that by utilizing those techniques, you will end up achieving your goal.
So basically you are just ignoring or not understanding those analogies I've used. Please list what made you confused, I would be glad to discuss them with you.
But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
It's even a questionable social science. If you look up the theories that PUA is based on, it has a number of detractors in the social-scientific community. It is in no way proven, hard science.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
Who needs social science papers when he's got a National geographic channel popcorn show to back him up.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I thought it was obvious I mean "science" as in a social science similar to psychology and social studies. Now people are arguing about the semantics of it LOL. PUA is not math where each action gives an exact result. There are rules and steps to get results, but varies between each individual. At best collectively as a group there are patterns.
So where are the social science papers on PUA? Or consensus amongst social scientists as to the scientific merit of PUA?
Without having any position on PUA, the requirement for science papers is non sense. Learning to relate with females is like learning to play football (soccer), its an empirical thing developed trough imitation, practice and self analysis.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
Edit: @gotunk well they are the ones claiming that PUA has reduced male/female interaction "to a science", and have clarified that it's like social sciences like psychology. So why not hold them to their standards?
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
If you don't have the patience for a 45 minutes video, then how are you going to have the patience for more detailed reading?
Think of the video as an intro class to get hooked
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
If you don't have the patience for a 45 minutes video, then how are you going to have the patience for more detailed reading?
Think of the video as an intro class to get hooked
I'm not asking for an intro class. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that PUA is a science. Thus far you're just skipping around the issue.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
If you don't have the patience for a 45 minutes video, then how are you going to have the patience for more detailed reading?
Think of the video as an intro class to get hooked
I'm not asking for an intro class. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that PUA is a science. Thus far you're just skipping around the issue and throwing out the occasional ad hominen.
Not true, the video provides enough evidence. Evidence is evidence regardless of the media outlet.
If you were to just to spend your time watching it til the middle of it instead of arguing, you could get a much better understanding of the science behind PUA.
The idea that the media outlet does not matter is entirely misconceived. A television program's main purpose is to entertain and be amusing. It is not beholden to be accurate. There is a much greater ambit to stretch the truth for the sake of entertainment.
A peer reviewed paper is not all that. You put your reputation as a scientist on the line with its publication.
I think it's quite clear why the latter is preffered as evidence.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
Edit: @gotunk well they are the ones claiming that PUA has reduced male/female interaction "to a science", and have clarified that it's like social sciences like psychology. So why not hold them to their standards?
I don't know who claims that, but it is large and diverse community. I think those who claim that are misguided and that there is no need for that. In weight lifting, for example, the best coaches are former athletes who spent years under the bar, and formal studies are for the most part completely useless. I think something pretty similar applies to relating with woman.
To be fair with PUA, I also consider wide parts of stablishment psychology, sociology, economics (SOME PARTS) and finance to be complete non-sense (and I have a finance major). Just because something is taught at an university does not mean is worth knowing or useful at all; moreover, false theories create a sense of certainty that is completely false and back fires (banks using VaR, psychiatrist over prescribing pills because they made up diseases)
Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
Anyway it's for you to provide something that backs up your claim, and not for me to help you with that. So far you've shown me a television program. Is that all? Do you not realise you've been skirting around the issue all this whole when a scientific paper which says "PUA is consistent with xxx scientific principles" would have resolved this conundrum a while ago?
@GoTuNk! Maybe not. But it's quite generous to call something based on science if it as little related to science as any sort of pop-psychology you might find on Oprah. A lot of self-help can have the window dressing of science for marketing purposes without being grounded in any sort of real science.
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
I've always stated that PUA have scientific backings.
Every skill is based upon science and PUA is indifferent. Like every skill such as weightlifting, there are ways to improve your performance with the correct sets of exercise and diets.
Speaking from that analogy, what do you specifically need to know what type "workout" / "diet" have the best result in PUA? This shouldn't be difficult to provide if you have a good foundation of the topic, that is if you have watched the series!
On May 29 2014 13:38 Xiphos wrote: Not if you got an entire organization risking their reputation.
Listen you got to be more specific about those articles that you are requesting, PUA is a multi-faceted education. Scientific studies have gone into details in experimenting and explaining those sides. And in order for you to understand those aspects, you need to first get a GENUINE understanding of the system and this video provides just that.
PUA is based upon biology, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, politics, and social science and even is you go into one of the categories, there will be multiple of layers for one to full grasp the concept. If you don't even know the basics, who are you to demand the more profound studies regarding the topic?
Please answer that question.
Wait. So now instead of saying PUA is a science, you're saying it's based on sciences? What exactly is it supposed to be?
I've always stated that PUA have scientific backings.
Every skill is based upon science and PUA is indifferent. Like every skill such as weightlifting, there are ways to improve your performance with the correct sets of exercise and diets.
Speaking from that analogy, what do you specifically need to know what type "workout" / "diet" have the best result in PUA? This shouldn't be difficult to provide if you have a good foundation of the topic, that is if you have watched the series!
I've no idea why you're trying to quiz me on PUA when I never claimed to be an authority on it, and only wanted evidence that it is a science.
So when you say it has scientific backings, what do you mean by this? Are you saying science endorses it? It that science can explain it?
It it's an endorsement then please show the papers where it happened.
If scientific backing means it's based on scientific principles, again please show the paper (and not your arguments by analogy) showing this to be the case.
If you're saying that science is involved in the same way that science can explain football or cooking, then I have no problem with that. Except it's a meaningless statement since nearly all human activity can be explained by science. So PUA isnt anymore peculiar or privileged than say taking dump which involves principles of physics chemistry and biology.
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
But how is this scientific? You're just repeating yourself and asking how we can argue against what you see as self evident principles. Science does not take an approach thay anything is self evident.
On May 29 2014 13:52 OuchyDathurts wrote: So, you're not going to provide a paper because it doesn't exist. I think this avenue of discussion is about wrapped up then.
No because you...
Hold up...
let me be polite.
I'm going to refer to a past post of mine from the same thread.
On May 27 2014 11:23 Xiphos wrote: Scenerio one: Saturday morning, a couple get up in the morning. Girl ask the men about what's the plan for the day. Guy says: "I don't know, haven't really thought about it."
Scenerio two: Same day, same thing asked by the girl. The guy answers with confidence "Oh, let's go to that new Italian restaurent place that opened up last week and then later we can catch that new movie about Jesus Christ."
Which scenerio do you think the girl will be attracted to?
The first scenerio is the average answer from an average men. The 2nd answer is clearly given by a men of sophiscated tastes, social awareness and have an interesting life.
PUA is teaching men how to plan their lives better and be an well-rounded individual!
The girl would obviously be more captivated by the 2nd one. How can you even argue against that?
I'm not seeing a scientific journal being listed. Your random made up scenarios aren't based on any science.
No one asked for a youtube video of a show, no one asked for some scenario you've fabricated. The only thing you've been asked for is a link to a scientific paper and you refuse to provide it. As such the only possible explanation is no paper exists proving the scientific merit of PUA so you're defending a point you've completely lost.
We are going to establish a few things beforehand that PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
"For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. [...]
When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine."
"This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain."
"We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.
The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.
Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.
We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.
As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict."
"How your posture might make you more likely to cheat, steal, and commit traffic violations.
Here, the researchers tested whether a person’s posture — specifically, how “expansive”, or spread out, it is — affects their willingness to perform dishonest acts. Turns out that tricking people into adopting an expansive body position make them more willing to steal money, cheat on a test, and even commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Not only that, but cars with wider seats were more likely to be found illegally parked on the streets of New York City. The authors hypothesize that the effects they see are due to the expansive body position making people feel more powerful — and, as we know, powerful people tend to be both dishonest and hypocritical."
"Walster (1965) investigated the influence of momentary self-esteem on receptivity to the romantic advances of a stranger. The researcher arranged for a group of female participants to interact with a male research assistant who flirted with them. The female participants were then given positive or negative personality test feedback. After their self-esteem was increased or decreased in that way, they were asked to rate their liking for the male research assistant.
The results of the study indicated that women who had their self-esteem temporarily lowered found the male research assistant significantly more attractive than the women with temporary high-self esteem. Walster (1965) theorized that this effect occurred for two reasons. First, individuals who feel “imperfect” themselves may demand less in a partner. Second, a person usually has an increased need for acceptance and affection when their self-esteem is low. Overall then, when an individual is made to feel “low”, they find potential romantic partners more attractive."
"Can you “click” with someone after only four minutes? That’s the question at the heart of new research by Stanford scholars Dan McFarland and Dan Jurafsky that looks at how meaningful bonds are formed. [...]
“One of the key features of a community, social network or relationship is the sense that it’s meaningful, that there is some kind of force behind the relationship,” McFarland said. “We wanted to get at what the essence of the connection is, what makes people feel like they bonded.”
McFarland said much of the literature on social bonding points to characteristics – traits, status, attributes, motivation, experiences – as reasons why people connect. But, he said, those explanations ignore or downplay the role of communication. [...]
Their analysis of nearly 1,000 dates found that words, indeed, do matter. How the words are delivered, when and for how long make a difference to how people feel toward each other, and in this case, whether the men and women sensed that they “clicked” during their encounter.
The four-minute date, the study found, was enough time to forge a meaningful relationship – something that seemed to go beyond looks and motivation. But female participants reported lower rates of “clicking” than men, suggesting the women are more selective and, in this particular setting, more powerful."
On May 29 2014 14:17 Xiphos wrote: We are going to establish a few things beforehand that PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
"For decades, experts believed women flocked to silent types because of their aloof and mysterious nature – but new research suggests its because the trait is actually an ultimate sign of masculinity. [...]
When a women meets a man who talks a lot, they consider them to be more feminine and less attractive, yet men who use shorter words and speak more concisely were seen as more attractive because they appeared more masculine."
"This article presents an anthropological analysis of heterosexual seduction behaviors of men and women (from 18 to 65 years old, with varying civil status) who attended nightclubs located in the movida areas of Lisbon, Portugal. These behaviors were analyzed according to structure versus communitas theories. Nighttime seduction behaviors were observed and recorded in a field diary, and in-depth semistructured interviews with 60 men and 60 women were conducted. Interviews were analyzed using the thematic content analysis model. Results suggested that the communitas domain was evinced in the various seduction strategies. These courtship behaviors tended to follow a specific pattern: nonverbal seduction, visual seduction, verbal seduction, and acting-consisting of caresses, touches, and kisses. When this escalation process evoked positive responses, it generally culminated in the complete synchrony of movements between the two bodies. The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting. However, sometimes men and women did not want to seduce or be seduced because they were married (especially women) or were with their partners (especially young men) and did not want to endanger the structure domain."
"We generated a large virtual population of males and females, the males all differing genetically in their ability to invest resources in raising children. The females had a genetically determined preference for this male quality, which meant that females with a strong preference were more likely to end up with a male who invested more.
The males and females that paired up in our model then mated and produced offspring, who inherited (with a small chance of mutation) the investing qualities and mating preferences of their parents. We ran our model over thousands of generations, observing which genetic traits thrived and which didn’t.
Evolutionary biologists had built this kind of model before to understand mating preferences in other animals, but we added some new ingredients. First, we allowed a female’s parents to interfere with her choice of a male. Second, we allowed parents to distribute their resources among their children.
We found that over time, parents in our model evolved to invest more resources in daughters who chose mates with few resources. This unequal investment was in the parents’ best interests, because a daughter with an unsupportive partner would profit more from extra help than her more fortunate sisters (the principle of diminishing returns on investment). By helping their needier daughters, parents maximized their total number of surviving grandchildren.
But this unequal investment created an incentive for daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity by choosing a partner who was less supportive. A daughter who was less picky than her sisters would accept a less helpful partner, but since her parents picked up the slack she ended up with a similar amount of support, while sparing herself the costs of holding out for the perfect man.
As a result, the choosiness of females gradually declined over evolutionary time. To counterbalance this, the parental preference for caring sons-in-law increased. Hence the conflict."
"How your posture might make you more likely to cheat, steal, and commit traffic violations.
Here, the researchers tested whether a person’s posture — specifically, how “expansive”, or spread out, it is — affects their willingness to perform dishonest acts. Turns out that tricking people into adopting an expansive body position make them more willing to steal money, cheat on a test, and even commit traffic violations in a driving simulation. Not only that, but cars with wider seats were more likely to be found illegally parked on the streets of New York City. The authors hypothesize that the effects they see are due to the expansive body position making people feel more powerful — and, as we know, powerful people tend to be both dishonest and hypocritical."
"Walster (1965) investigated the influence of momentary self-esteem on receptivity to the romantic advances of a stranger. The researcher arranged for a group of female participants to interact with a male research assistant who flirted with them. The female participants were then given positive or negative personality test feedback. After their self-esteem was increased or decreased in that way, they were asked to rate their liking for the male research assistant.
The results of the study indicated that women who had their self-esteem temporarily lowered found the male research assistant significantly more attractive than the women with temporary high-self esteem. Walster (1965) theorized that this effect occurred for two reasons. First, individuals who feel “imperfect” themselves may demand less in a partner. Second, a person usually has an increased need for acceptance and affection when their self-esteem is low. Overall then, when an individual is made to feel “low”, they find potential romantic partners more attractive."
"Can you “click” with someone after only four minutes? That’s the question at the heart of new research by Stanford scholars Dan McFarland and Dan Jurafsky that looks at how meaningful bonds are formed. [...]
“One of the key features of a community, social network or relationship is the sense that it’s meaningful, that there is some kind of force behind the relationship,” McFarland said. “We wanted to get at what the essence of the connection is, what makes people feel like they bonded.”
McFarland said much of the literature on social bonding points to characteristics – traits, status, attributes, motivation, experiences – as reasons why people connect. But, he said, those explanations ignore or downplay the role of communication. [...]
Their analysis of nearly 1,000 dates found that words, indeed, do matter. How the words are delivered, when and for how long make a difference to how people feel toward each other, and in this case, whether the men and women sensed that they “clicked” during their encounter.
The four-minute date, the study found, was enough time to forge a meaningful relationship – something that seemed to go beyond looks and motivation. But female participants reported lower rates of “clicking” than men, suggesting the women are more selective and, in this particular setting, more powerful."
This is great, and I'd love to discuss this. But can you please paste this in a new thread called sth like "The Science of Mating Success"? I don't think that it is adequate to discuss these things in this thread.
On May 29 2014 15:47 Jumperer wrote: If picking up women was scientific all scientists would have a hot babe by his side.
Being a researcher doesn't give you magic powers. Science as it's actually done is more about covering your bases and eliminating alternative explanations than being certain of something at the fringe of human knowledge, because you never have enough information to answer all the questions that pop up. With that said, with all that troubleshooting, you'd think that one could approach life the same way.
The studies above, even if we were to take them fully at face value, which I don't, are essentially speculative and have poor generalizability as far as humans go. That's not to take a dump on the authors, because well, it's a hard as hell system to study and maybe that's the best we can come up with so far.
Jesus, and now I know why the dating thread prohibits anything PUA related. Also, there was a PUA thread on TL that was closed because it got so fucking creepy and idiotic.
Edit: forgive the length. Consider this a general rebuttal to the PUA justifications in this thread and a voice in support of the 'it is mostly anecdote, misrepresentation and pseudoscience' counterargument.
PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
Ohhhh goody. Now I can put my amateur epidemiology hat on.
Link 1: (daily mail)
So the daily mail is what is referred to as a tabloid newspaper, not an academic journal. It's fairly well recognized that such newspapers do not actually have science correspondents ( that is to say, someone with a level of expertise in reading and analyzing scientific literature), so articles like this are basically someone just like you reading the abstract of a paper and then trying to make it sound important (or interviewing a scientist who desperately wants their research to sound more important to get funding and then exaggerating even THAT). You can even look at this person's article history and see that, by and large, the only articles to do with actual scientific research she's written on are either 'cool wierd shit' articles, tech articles dressed up a science and attrativeness/sexuality/psychopathology research.
This article cites no quantitative data (percentages and so forth), makes some pretty hilarious fallacies right off the bat (women speak more than men on average therefore speaking less is 'more masculine'. Right there in the opening summary). It does not include a link to the study. Luckily, I'm not an imbecile, so I can do that for you. It's here
Here's the abstract:
This study reports on male and female Californians' ratings of vocal attractiveness for 30 male and 30 female voices reading isolated words. While ratings by both sexes were highly correlated, males generally rated fellow males as less attractive than females did, but both females and males had similar ratings of female voices. Detailed acoustic analyses of multiple parameters followed by principal component analyses on vowel and voice quality measures were conducted. Relevant principal components, along with additional independent acoustic measures, were entered into regression models to assess which acoustic properties predict attractiveness ratings. These models suggest that a constellation of acoustic features which indicate apparent talker size and conformity to community speech norms contribute to perceived vocal attractiveness. These results suggest that judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.
If we look in the methodology, we see this:
Thirty native speakers of Californian English (15 females, 15 males) served as raters and received course credit or $10 for compensation. All reported normal hearing and had lived in California from toddlerhood.
So the female sample for this research was 15 californian university students. Native californians too, so no one from a non-US cultural environment. (I'm making a bit of an assumption here due to the course credit stipulation, but this would be in line with most studies of this type. A sample is simply picked from whoever they find nearby). Not exactly a representative sample of 'all women'
so, so, so. In this case, you selectively quoted an article that selectively quoted someone's pet research project which, when actually looked at concludes that 'judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.', which is hardly 'guys we've proved beyond doubt why the strong silent stereotype exists!'
NEXT.
Link 2: Abstract from 'Heterosexual seduction in the Urban Night Context: Behaviors and Meanings
Hmm, so this one is a little less retarded (forgive me, I hate media misrepresentation of research). Still, we don't have much to work with from the abstract and I'm not subscribed so I can't access the full text. Here's what's relevant (mostly)
The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting.
aaand that's it. It is an observation of the dating strategies of a sample of people in lisbourne, portugal. It observed that men tended to do X and Y and women to do A and B. No attempt was made in the abstract to explain why this is the case, so no inference should be drawn. In so far as any theoretical work was achieved by the study, it was not a study of dating, but one of communitas, which is a far broader and (frankly) more important concept in the social sciences. Not exactly sure why this is used to support PUA. Perhaps elaborate?
This is an interesting one because superficially it is actually the most supportive of PUA ideology so far, however, unfortunately for the PUA crowd, it's... well, to put it nicely, using this kind of data to justify your own behavior towards a group is preeeeety much what the eugenics movement was all about. The reason why that is so reviled is, as well as being durp to the wall psychopathic assholery that ignores the feelings of your fellow humans, also completely ignores the effect of culture. Which is a pretty fucking big thing to ignore, just saying.
Using this kind of statistical modelling to make hard statements about how one should act is basically like expecting prisoners to behave like the actors in 'prisoner's dilemma'. Which may just get you shivved.
Plus, the core finding of the study revolves around the relationships between parents and offspring, not partners. A reasonable extrapolation to make would be that the less influence parents have on their offspring's choice of partner and the less they are invested in that choice, the less this applies. I think it's also fair to say that we live in a period where women's ability and desire to choose partners and live their lives without dependence on their family is higher than ever before which weakens the applicability of this research. Which was weak to begin with. So while this one is interesting, at least, It's not very practical.
NEXT
link 4: Discover summary of the results of this study:
Ok, so you're not doing yourself any favours here. This study is basically about how posture causes you to act like a douchenozzle. If you strut around like a douchenozzle, turns out you'll actually start acting like one too. Whoodathunkit.
More seriously, I assume the point trying to be conveyed was that PUA folks should learn to adopt certain postures because those postures are more conducive to feeling like a glamorous badass, which will naturally score you some tail. Behind all this bullshit lies a clean, simple truth: people will read your body language. If you look scared, they will assume you are scared and worry about it. If you don't look scared, they'll assume you're full of yourself, which some section of women do find attractive based on an assortment of anecdotes. If you want to score a nice, thoughtful girl, be ok looking scared. If you want to score someone who is just there to milk you (generally because they feel entitled to your undying loyalty on account of their haircolour and titsize), waddle around like your pants are too tight all you like.
If you want to actually propose a more reasonable logical extension of this research for use on dates, be my guest. Be warned though, I will do my best to dismember it with a number of accompanying citations you will likely find inconceivable.
NEXT!
Link the 5th!
I'm actually not even going to dignify this one. Like seriously, this would fail SO many ethics checks today that the guy would be out on his ass and never allowed into a research institution again.
On top of that (and of far more pragamatic relevance) is that there's a key distinction between the study and the behavior it is used to justify (negging). That is, the negativity in the study was brought in from an outside source, unrelated to the object of the experimental subjects' interests. He did not put them down, they were induced into a state of lower confidence through things (supposedly) unrelated to the guy. I shouldn't have to explain how this is vastly different to if the man they were meant to be going for himself put them down. So yes, if you want to have a better chance, find a girl who's desperate for someone, anyone to treat her nicely and validate her efforts a bit. In the dating world of PUA, that shouldn't be too hard...
Even ignoring that problem, by the way, you didn't quote the rest of the article, where the guy says:
First and foremost, using such tactics often comes from a place of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Dean, 1964-5). In the end then, they may not lead to lasting, satisfying relationships - just to both individuals being miserable (Boxer, 2002). Therefore, while the potential short-term effects are intellectually interesting, any temporary gain could be off-set by even greater long-term difficulties. It would simply be better to find a reasonable partner, with appropriate self-esteem, who is agreeable and attracted from the start.
Second, it is important to note, however, that these tactics do have an effect. Individuals should be aware that insults can influence their attraction and compliance. A spouse or date that makes you feel low may actually be making you fall for them more - not less. So, guys and gals beware.
Third, for those who are concerned about the ethics of specific forms of insults in relationships, it might be a good idea to broaden your definitions. Such tactics are not confined to a subset of individuals (e.g. PUAs) or a single gender. Both men and women nag and neg. Both insult to lower self-esteem, gain a compliance advantage, and influence romantic feelings. Therefore, rather than simply advocating for the abolishment of one type of behavior, or one gender's use, we might want to arrange an overall cease-and-desist of such tactics. At least, making everyone aware of the potential effect of ALL of these types of behaviors is a start.
In summary: 1) this kind of behavior is likely to lead to misery for both partners 2) it'll still actually get you attached to people though, which means 3) congratulations, you now have yourself a relationship! An unhealthy, unfulfilling, abusive relationship. GL HF ^^.
Last one:
"Research on speed dating examines what makes couples 'click' in four minutes"
Another interesting one. While I think this one is the first that fills my baseline level for actually being relevant and practical, there are some observations to make
1) the participants were all graduate students at stanford, placing them probably within maybe the top 0.1% of people in terms of their ability to critically analyse, maintain composure under pressure and communicate with their peers, all of which are critical to postgrad study and work. Taking them as a representative sample is therefore inadvisable. Especially when you're trying to apply the same rules to a drug addled tween in a nightclub.
2) There's also this note
"The researchers said the longer it took for the individuals to decide on a date, the more they reported having a bonding experience, suggesting communication can change someone's feelings about another person and break their association with traits"
I'm adlibbing totally here, but to me what that says is actually getting to know someone and letting them get to know you as an individual, not just a performance, will mean they won't judge you based on all these alpha/beta stereotypes the PUA community seem to lap up. This has also been my experience, anecdotally. Not being mr decisive, man of all men but simply by organizing, honestly, to see people I like around my life schedule and making sure I'm going out to enjoy myself in good company has resulted in a lot of really quite enjoyable dates.
On May 29 2014 12:33 Plansix wrote: Basiclly, he provided no evidence that it was science and now demands you prove him wrong. Internet arguments 101.
On May 29 2014 12:29 levelping wrote: But I didn't ask for analogies... I asked for evidence that PUA is a science and that would be easily shown with a peer reviewed scientific paper by a scientist.
If you scroll up the position that you are defending is that PUA is a science. This isn't a claim about whether it is a mix of other sciences or whether it draws on other principles.
I'm sorry it seems you've confused a television program with a scientific paper.
Its much better for your digestion.
If another personal attack is the best riposte you can muster than I fear that your argument is in shambles, and we do not really need to continue.
Its not personal attack. PUA is not learned by reading papers but rather learned in motion.
So please stop being so defensive.
I'm not being defensive. I'm asking for evidence to back up the claim that PUA is a science.
Given that you're now saying that it's not learned by reading papers, I take it you're abandoning the argument that it is a science?
Watch the video first and then if you have any further questions, then its paper time. But for now, take video notes.
You're avoiding the issue. I've asked for scientific papers thay back up your claim and you've given me a popular science video, which from the first ten minutes, appears to me to be narrated by a stunt man or actor. How is this in anyway equivalent to a scientific paper or, for that matter, assists your thus far unfounded claim that PUA is a science?
Edit: @gotunk well they are the ones claiming that PUA has reduced male/female interaction "to a science", and have clarified that it's like social sciences like psychology. So why not hold them to their standards?
I don't know who claims that, but it is large and diverse community. I think those who claim that are misguided and that there is no need for that. In weight lifting, for example, the best coaches are former athletes who spent years under the bar, and formal studies are for the most part completely useless. I think something pretty similar applies to relating with woman.
To be fair with PUA, I also consider wide parts of stablishment psychology, sociology, economics (SOME PARTS) and finance to be complete non-sense (and I have a finance major). Just because something is taught at an university does not mean is worth knowing or useful at all; moreover, false theories create a sense of certainty that is completely false and back fires (banks using VaR, psychiatrist over prescribing pills because they made up diseases)
You do know that there is a metric shit ton of various science studies relating to sports that is readily used right? Saying formal studies are mostly "completely useless" is fairly disingenuous. You also are making some pretty bold and broad claims about various disciplines that make me want to ask for your qualifications to assess them. Considering you are what I am assuming is a college student, I would say you probably have limited knowledge to judge any one of those fields.
What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
On May 29 2014 17:01 urboss wrote: The alpha/beta male distinction is correct, but the conclusions the PUA community draws from this are vastly incorrect.
Anyone who tries to emulate alpha male behavior is by definition not an alpha male!
Wait so if you want to improve yourself by acting a certain way which will eventually adopt yourself and emerge yourself to be completely alpha male isn't the most alpha thing to do?
Well then I guess by emulating the success of the the rich and powerful (and getting the same result) is all just bullshit am I right? Or that if you see someone getting better result than you and then you copy his methods while getting the same result isn't considered as attractive am I right?
All these questions are rhetorics. There is nothing wrong with emulating other's behaviors to get the same result.
Regarding the testosterone levels, that's why many PUA programs rec its trainees to workout and avoid tofu because it inject many estrogens. T levels can be altered through primeval form of exercise.
On May 29 2014 16:31 Thereisnosaurus wrote: Edit: forgive the length. Consider this a general rebuttal to the PUA justifications in this thread and a voice in support of the 'it is mostly anecdote, misrepresentation and pseudoscience' counterargument.
PUA is to get intimidate with a girl by using various body languages, voice tone, and choices of words. Okay? Alright we've confirmed that.
Ohhhh goody. Now I can put my amateur epidemiology hat on.
Link 1: (daily mail)
So the daily mail is what is referred to as a tabloid newspaper, not an academic journal. It's fairly well recognized that such newspapers do not actually have science correspondents ( that is to say, someone with a level of expertise in reading and analyzing scientific literature), so articles like this are basically someone just like you reading the abstract of a paper and then trying to make it sound important (or interviewing a scientist who desperately wants their research to sound more important to get funding and then exaggerating even THAT). You can even look at this person's article history and see that, by and large, the only articles to do with actual scientific research she's written on are either 'cool wierd shit' articles, tech articles dressed up a science and attrativeness/sexuality/psychopathology research.
This article cites no quantitative data (percentages and so forth), makes some pretty hilarious fallacies right off the bat (women speak more than men on average therefore speaking less is 'more masculine'. Right there in the opening summary). It does not include a link to the study. Luckily, I'm not an imbecile, so I can do that for you. It's here
This study reports on male and female Californians' ratings of vocal attractiveness for 30 male and 30 female voices reading isolated words. While ratings by both sexes were highly correlated, males generally rated fellow males as less attractive than females did, but both females and males had similar ratings of female voices. Detailed acoustic analyses of multiple parameters followed by principal component analyses on vowel and voice quality measures were conducted. Relevant principal components, along with additional independent acoustic measures, were entered into regression models to assess which acoustic properties predict attractiveness ratings. These models suggest that a constellation of acoustic features which indicate apparent talker size and conformity to community speech norms contribute to perceived vocal attractiveness. These results suggest that judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.
Thirty native speakers of Californian English (15 females, 15 males) served as raters and received course credit or $10 for compensation. All reported normal hearing and had lived in California from toddlerhood.
So the female sample for this research was 15 californian university students. Native californians too, so no one from a non-US cultural environment. (I'm making a bit of an assumption here due to the course credit stipulation, but this would be in line with most studies of this type. A sample is simply picked from whoever they find nearby). Not exactly a representative sample of 'all women'
so, so, so. In this case, you selectively quoted an article that selectively quoted someone's pet research project which, when actually looked at concludes that 'judgments of vocal attractiveness are more complex than previously described.', which is hardly 'guys we've proved beyond doubt why the strong silent stereotype exists!'
NEXT.
Link 2: Abstract from 'Heterosexual seduction in the Urban Night Context: Behaviors and Meanings
Hmm, so this one is a little less retarded (forgive me, I hate media misrepresentation of research). Still, we don't have much to work with from the abstract and I'm not subscribed so I can't access the full text. Here's what's relevant (mostly)
The seduction process encompassed both masculine and feminine initiatives: Women engaged primarily in nonverbal and visual seduction, while men appeared to orchestrate verbal courtship and acting.
aaand that's it. It is an observation of the dating strategies of a sample of people in lisbourne, portugal. It observed that men tended to do X and Y and women to do A and B. No attempt was made in the abstract to explain why this is the case, so no inference should be drawn. In so far as any theoretical work was achieved by the study, it was not a study of dating, but one of communitas, which is a far broader and (frankly) more important concept in the social sciences. Not exactly sure why this is used to support PUA. Perhaps elaborate?
This is an interesting one because superficially it is actually the most supportive of PUA ideology so far, however, unfortunately for the PUA crowd, it's... well, to put it nicely, using this kind of data to justify your own behavior towards a group is preeeeety much what the eugenics movement was all about. The reason why that is so reviled is, as well as being durp to the wall psychopathic assholery that ignores the feelings of your fellow humans, also completely ignores the effect of culture. Which is a pretty fucking big thing to ignore, just saying.
Using this kind of statistical modelling to make hard statements about how one should act is basically like expecting prisoners to behave like the actors in 'prisoner's dilemma'. Which may just get you shivved.
Plus, the core finding of the study revolves around the relationships between parents and offspring, not partners. A reasonable extrapolation to make would be that the less influence parents have on their offspring's choice of partner and the less they are invested in that choice, the less this applies. I think it's also fair to say that we live in a period where women's ability and desire to choose partners and live their lives without dependence on their family is higher than ever before which weakens the applicability of this research. Which was weak to begin with. So while this one is interesting, at least, It's not very practical.
NEXT
link 4: Discover summary of the results of this study:
Ok, so you're not doing yourself any favours here. This study is basically about how posture causes you to act like a douchenozzle. If you strut around like a douchenozzle, turns out you'll actually start acting like one too. Whoodathunkit.
More seriously, I assume the point trying to be conveyed was that PUA folks should learn to adopt certain postures because those postures are more conducive to feeling like a glamorous badass, which will naturally score you some tail. Behind all this bullshit lies a clean, simple truth: people will read your body language. If you look scared, they will assume you are scared and worry about it. If you don't look scared, they'll assume you're full of yourself, which some section of women do find attractive based on an assortment of anecdotes. If you want to score a nice, thoughtful girl, be ok looking scared. If you want to score someone who is just there to milk you (generally because they feel entitled to your undying loyalty on account of their haircolour and titsize), waddle around like your pants are too tight all you like.
If you want to actually propose a more reasonable logical extension of this research for use on dates, be my guest. Be warned though, I will do my best to dismember it with a number of accompanying citations you will likely find inconceivable.
NEXT!
Link the 5th!
I'm actually not even going to dignify this one. Like seriously, this would fail SO many ethics checks today that the guy would be out on his ass and never allowed into a research institution again.
On top of that (and of far more pragamatic relevance) is that there's a key distinction between the study and the behavior it is used to justify (negging). That is, the negativity in the study was brought in from an outside source, unrelated to the object of the experimental subjects' interests. He did not put them down, they were induced into a state of lower confidence through things (supposedly) unrelated to the guy. I shouldn't have to explain how this is vastly different to if the man they were meant to be going for himself put them down. So yes, if you want to have a better chance, find a girl who's desperate for someone, anyone to treat her nicely and validate her efforts a bit. In the dating world of PUA, that shouldn't be too hard...
Even ignoring that problem, by the way, you didn't quote the rest of the article, where the guy says:
First and foremost, using such tactics often comes from a place of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Dean, 1964-5). In the end then, they may not lead to lasting, satisfying relationships - just to both individuals being miserable (Boxer, 2002). Therefore, while the potential short-term effects are intellectually interesting, any temporary gain could be off-set by even greater long-term difficulties. It would simply be better to find a reasonable partner, with appropriate self-esteem, who is agreeable and attracted from the start.
Second, it is important to note, however, that these tactics do have an effect. Individuals should be aware that insults can influence their attraction and compliance. A spouse or date that makes you feel low may actually be making you fall for them more - not less. So, guys and gals beware.
Third, for those who are concerned about the ethics of specific forms of insults in relationships, it might be a good idea to broaden your definitions. Such tactics are not confined to a subset of individuals (e.g. PUAs) or a single gender. Both men and women nag and neg. Both insult to lower self-esteem, gain a compliance advantage, and influence romantic feelings. Therefore, rather than simply advocating for the abolishment of one type of behavior, or one gender's use, we might want to arrange an overall cease-and-desist of such tactics. At least, making everyone aware of the potential effect of ALL of these types of behaviors is a start.
In summary: 1) this kind of behavior is likely to lead to misery for both partners 2) it'll still actually get you attached to people though, which means 3) congratulations, you now have yourself a relationship! An unhealthy, unfulfilling, abusive relationship. GL HF ^^.
Last one:
"Research on speed dating examines what makes couples 'click' in four minutes"
Another interesting one. While I think this one is the first that fills my baseline level for actually being relevant and practical, there are some observations to make
1) the participants were all graduate students at stanford, placing them probably within maybe the top 0.1% of people in terms of their ability to critically analyse, maintain composure under pressure and communicate with their peers, all of which are critical to postgrad study and work. Taking them as a representative sample is therefore inadvisable. Especially when you're trying to apply the same rules to a drug addled tween in a nightclub.
"The researchers said the longer it took for the individuals to decide on a date, the more they reported having a bonding experience, suggesting communication can change someone's feelings about another person and break their association with traits"
I'm adlibbing totally here, but to me what that says is actually getting to know someone and letting them get to know you as an individual, not just a performance, will mean they won't judge you based on all these alpha/beta stereotypes the PUA community seem to lap up. This has also been my experience, anecdotally. Not being mr decisive, man of all men but simply by organizing, honestly, to see people I like around my life schedule and making sure I'm going out to enjoy myself in good company has resulted in a lot of really quite enjoyable dates.
Also a decent amount of pretty epic sex.
1st point: Since you have a personal vendetta against the website, I can't help you with that.
2nd point:
To put it in LAYman’s terms: Women seduce men with their bodies, men seduce women with their nimble tongues (aka game).
Women require plausible deniability in matters of the tingle. Ambiguity is, to women, the essence of seduction. Hints and innuendo, “does he or doesn’t he?” mental calisthenics, and dramatic reversals and forward movements all contribute to heightening a woman’s sexual arousal.
Men need none of this. A pretty woman could present her naked body for the taking, and the man will take it, no (sincere) questions asked. Men abide the nuanced female view of seduction because women hold the key to sex; men who don’t abide women’s unspoken romantic predilections tend to go home alone. To bed a woman, a man must find a way to oscillate on her tingle frequency, and then to amplify that frequency. This tingle amplification needn’t be permanent; short bursts of wavelength alignment are often enough to do the job, because most men hardly come close to hurdling that low bar.
The best male seducers are those who relish the inherently feminine nature of seduction. These are men who not only understand the rules of the game, they are overjoyed to apply them, and in so doing come to master them.
So women use coy facial expressions and sexy displays of their bodies to entrance men, while men use words and subtle touch to entrance women. In other words, each sex PLAYS BY THE RULES OF THE OTHER SEX. Women give men what men want (visually stimulating sexiness and lip-licking promise) and men give women what women want (a torrent of seductive, pregnant words anchored with erotic, escalating touches).
Third point:
So to summarize your point, you are only rejecting this point because your feelings got hurt while reading. Not a valid argument at all bro. This article is attempting to explore the structural of gender roles in our society in order to see through the psychology behind the genders to get a better understanding
Plus women are NOT more independent to their families than previous years. In the past, a girl is to be expected to be married off to a guy and live off by themselves at age 19. Currently, 19 year old are still living in their home and/or living on campuses from her parents' financial support.
So chicks dig layabout badboys because daddy (or when daddy is missing, the government) will play the role of the beta provider. And daughters know this parental or governmental safety net is there for them, so they feel free to pursue exciting jerks with low future time orientation because TINGLES. In the ancestral environment, long before contraceptives like the Pill became widely and cheaply available, the daughters who jumped into relationships sooner with fun-loving jerks got a head start on the procreation race over their sisters who waited for the best package deal their looks could get them.
Fourth point:
You are basically agreeing with me at this point that if you want to be confident, then act confident. Girls would rather choose a man who is fully confident of himself (and marrying someone with such confidence) than someone who is constantly scared about life. So if you want to attract girls, you need to act confident and NOT scared.
Also define "nice, thoughtful girl". In regarding to the type of girls, if one was able to put a man that gets all his shit together and another one that shrugs a lot because he is scared alot, well nearly all girls will choose to have the confident's men children because that's just how evolution works.
Fifth point:
You can argue about the ethics of game till the cows come home, but what you can’t argue is that game doesn’t work. It does, and though the tactics may strike one as manipulative and even mercenary, they exist in their form only because the sexual nature of women is what it is. If women responded sexually to effusive praise and sincere compliments that raised their self-esteems, men would be spitting lines like “You are very beautiful and so very very smart. You will be the first female President of the United States, I can tell. May I touch your wizard sleeve?”, until they were practically supine and begging women to walk on them.
But of course no men beside suck-ups playing the looooong game spits those kinds of lines. If a man of sound mind did that, it wouldn’t take him more than three minutes to figure out it was getting him nowhere with women.
The article includes a section on wifely nagging, which the author attempts to equate to negging. The comparison is a stretch; women become aroused and curious when they are negged, which is very different than what men feel when they are nagged. (Hint: Negged women want to interact more with their alluring tormentors; nagged men want to get the hell away from their annoying termagants.) Plus, wives don’t nag with the goal of getting sexual favors from their husbands. They nag because they’re feeling unsupported or frustrated or menstrual. Men, in stark contrast, neg with the specific goal of inflaming a romantic tryst.
And on last point:
1) You are dismissing this because it includes "thoughtful" people which you wanted to attracted to previously and not some "bit tit" girl. Check out the hypocrisy on this one.
2)
“Give me five minutes to talk away my ugly face, and I can bed the Queen of France.” - Voltaire
Reading this study, you may be inclined to conclude that women just like to talk about themselves a lot, and love it when men leverage that female vanity to progress the courtship toward sex. Yes! A lot of romantic “connection” that women feel is so magical and fateful is just the man coolly sitting back and letting the woman yap a little, while he nods occasionally or touches her forearm for synchronicity.
I kind of feel like some of you need to rent The English Patient, and chill out. Do you really need to write long essays on "what women want" in this thread? Really sad to see it, for a multitude of reasons.
First, I think the PUA concept screws itself over by its very premise. This isn't science. As sappy as it sounds, sexual relationships are a play of emotions and personality, two things that science doesn't understand at all, really. What does someone "on the top of the field" of personal relationships look like, exactly? Even the goal you're trying to achieve is subjective, because not everyone wants the same thing from personal relationships. There are techniques of power-plays, projecting confidence, etc. These techniques are great for a job interview -- a forced personal meeting of short length and quick impressions. Putting this science of projection in the forefront of your interactions with the opposite sex is fucking comical. If you really feel it helps, or feel you need it, then by all means. Just remember your childhood can't be erased, and you can't override your genetic code. You are who you are, and nothing is a bigger turn-off than finding out someone is "fake", putting on an act. If you're not a confident person, then by all means, work on your confidence -- to which one does not need PUA. But simply projecting confidence is an absolute betrayal of confidence. One intimate moment, which is the real test, and she's going to see the projection for what it is. You're walking into a paradox, and it's not going to work. If I were to generalize women in one way it's this: they can sense insincerity better than men can. And yet the PUA idea of attracting women is to behave in a manner that is simply, by your need to learn it, not natural to you? Good luck with that. Not only does it seem like a great way to dull and obscure your personality, it also annihilates the concept and romance of personal connection. At a certain point among all these generalizations Xiphos espouses, one has to wonder if calling an escort wouldn't be any less personal? It'd certainly be more sincere.
Second, this should all be in another thread. Just having this discussion in the name of this travesty is fucking disgusting, imo. Talking about the fairness of sexual relationships in our society is one thing, but promoting PUA and codifying women's desires with certitude is really bad taste.
On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote: What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."
This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.
Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?
It echoes those nauseating lines of Bertolt Brecht:
Alas, we Who wished to lay the foundations of kindness Could not ourselves be kind.
On May 29 2014 21:07 Leporello wrote: I kind of feel like some of you need to rent The English Patient, and chill out. Do you really need to write long essays on "what women want" in this thread? Really sad to see it, for a multitude of reasons.
First, I think the PUA concept screws itself over by its very premise. This isn't science. As sappy as it sounds, sexual relationships are a play of emotions and personality, two things that science doesn't understand at all, really. What does someone "on the top of the field" of personal relationships look like, exactly? Even the goal you're trying to achieve is subjective, because not everyone wants the same thing from personal relationships. There are techniques of power-plays, projecting confidence, etc. These techniques are great for a job interview -- a forced personal meeting of short length and quick impressions. Putting this science of projection in the forefront of your interactions with the opposite sex is fucking comical. If you really feel it helps, or feel you need it, then by all means. Just remember your childhood can't be erased, and you can't override your genetic code. You are who you are, and nothing is a bigger turn-off than finding out someone is "fake", putting on an act. If you're not a confident person, then by all means, work on your confidence -- to which one does not need PUA. But simply projecting confidence is an absolute betrayal of confidence. One intimate moment, which is the real test, and she's going to see the projection for what it is. You're walking into a paradox, and it's not going to work. If I were to generalize women in one way it's this: they can sense insincerity better than men can. And yet the PUA idea of attracting women is to behave in a manner that is simply, by your need to learn it, not natural to you? Good luck with that. Not only does it seem like a great way to dull and obscure your personality, it also annihilates the concept and romance of personal connection. At a certain point among all these generalizations Xiphos espouses, one has to wonder if calling an escort wouldn't be any less personal? It'd certainly be more sincere.
Second, this should all be in another thread. Just having this discussion in the name of this travesty is fucking disgusting, imo. Talking about the fairness of sexual relationships in our society is one thing, but promoting PUA and codifying women's desires with certitude is really bad taste.
In a sense, the idea of dating is like an interview, you need to be an attractive person (and so does the girl) to pass certain benchmarks and standards.
And much like an interview, the interviewer can see how "fake" a interviewee is. And the interviewee later works on that by making sure that he understands everything beforehand.
For example in this case of Elliot, he failed to pass the women's test by being so-called "antisocial" and "creepy".
On May 29 2014 17:01 urboss wrote: The alpha/beta male distinction is correct, but the conclusions the PUA community draws from this are vastly incorrect.
Anyone who tries to emulate alpha male behavior is by definition not an alpha male!
Alpha/beta/omega has a specific connotation within zoology that doesn't apply to humans, because we're not pack hunters and we don't have true pecking orders. In this case it's just an artificial label attached to confidence, which is something that varies based on setting and context.
I'm not sure if you're intending to do it, but you should not use the PUA alpha/beta terminology when discussing scientific articles and animal behavior, because it's just going to confuse things and misleads people into thinking alpha males/females really exist within human society.
@xiphos, I assumed you were citing research articles in order to build a base of evidence for your case rather than simply providing another way of illustrating the interests of the PUA community.
Your responses largely explain what the articles themselves explain, albeit in a far less scientific fashion and drawing additional conclusions from god knows where. They do nothing to answer my criticisms of them, which while I admit are motivated by a dislike of certain aspects of discourse around research, are so motivated not because they do not align with my political interests, but because they are not reliable sources of evidence. You are using these to try to provide an authoritative seeming basis from which PUA can be championed. I am questioning either the relevance of the research to your arguments, or the reliability of the inferences you are drawing from it due to the inherent limitations of such studies. I can clearly see you don't want to engage on that level, and I have no wish to try and discuss this topic without being able to assume that the quality of evidence is worth discussing.
To get back on topic, kind of, I just want to comment that I study play, and play has increasingly been one of the things I've noticed Elliot was deprived of. There's a fascinatingTED speech by one of the major american play researchers that might be worth looking at for those of you who do wish to investigate the reasons for his psychopathology. His digressions into WoW metacommentary notwithstanding, the guy clearly didn't have a very healthy developmental environment and lacked a diversity of play, particularly with other people to help him become socialized. This isn't an assertion that play deprivation was a significant factor, but I think it's worth considering. Thoughts?
The lengths that some are clearly willing to go in order to justify their sophomoric approach to dating basically proves that Rogers' heinous acts are linked to a much larger cultural problem. Though Pavlov would be proud, I'm sure.
On May 29 2014 21:51 Thereisnosaurus wrote: @xiphos, I assumed you were citing research articles in order to build a base of evidence for your case rather than simply providing another way of illustrating the interests of the PUA community.
Your responses largely explain what the articles themselves explain, albeit in a far less scientific fashion and drawing additional conclusions from god knows where. They do nothing to answer my criticisms of them, which while I admit are motivated by a dislike of certain aspects of discourse around research, are so motivated not because they do not align with my political interests, but because they are not reliable sources of evidence. You are using these to try to provide an authoritative seeming basis from which PUA can be championed. I am questioning either the relevance of the research to your arguments, or the reliability of the inferences you are drawing from it due to the inherent limitations of such studies. I can clearly see you don't want to engage on that level, and I have no wish to try and discuss this topic without being able to assume that the quality of evidence is worth discussing.
To get back on topic, kind of, I just want to comment that I study play, and play has increasingly been one of the things I've noticed Elliot was deprived of. There's a fascinatingTED speech by one of the major american play researchers that might be worth looking at for those of you who do wish to investigate the reasons for his psychopathology. His digressions into WoW metacommentary notwithstanding, the guy clearly didn't have a very healthy developmental environment and lacked a diversity of play, particularly with other people to help him become socialized. This isn't an assertion that play deprivation was a significant factor, but I think it's worth considering. Thoughts?
- Restating my writting.
- Not tackling any of the points even though I've pointed them out because "its not I want" without any form of explanation.
- Speaking from a biased point of view.
- Escaping from the source of argument that I've clearly defined what the argument in the disclaimer of what the argument is and that how different ways to hold conversation yields different results and evidence to back them up.
- Ignoring the basics of attraction between the sexes that if you want to attract a suitable partner, you need to cultivate certain qualities to the opposite sex in order to maximize your chances.
On topic: Listen if Elliot Rodger have adapted to what the modern female wants, he could've have much better chances with them, he could've been living the life of his dream in his father's fame, BMW, and ladies around him. Instead, we have witnessed a truly tragic turn of events.
P.S. And please use the PM for any future argument, I would appreciate it. Thank you for your support.
On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote: What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."
This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.
Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere.
For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not.
A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!"
Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?
I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.
On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote: What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."
This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.
Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere.
For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not.
A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!"
Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?
I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.
The key aspect of science that I think is missing from your view is that the scientific method is designed such that you make an effort to prove your hypothesis WRONG. In really good science, you keep pushing and pushing on your theory until it breaks, and then when it does, you change it to make it better. The fact that science is falsifiable is a real key aspect that is missing here. This is really important because it helps you narrow down causation as opposed to correlation. For the same reasons, you also need things like control groups and large cohorts to be able to substantiate claims based on standardized criteria. PUA does not offer this, it is simply a large collection of anecdotal evidence. And while that has value of its own, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Please don't get me wrong, I have no opinion on PUA, either positive of negative (hell I hardly even knew the community existed until a few days ago), but claiming it is science is bullshit. This does not, however, detract from any value it might have, as you have correctly pointed out.
edit: to be fair, I think your misconceptions about science are not among the worst, and I find that approaching things in the 'hypothesis->experiment->observe->report" (edit2: I also was very deliberate about replacing your word theory with hypothesis , I'm hoping to spread this terminology so that theory doesn't get diluted) methodology is, overall, a good one. However, this is more akin to exploration than it is to science. I get frustrated sometimes that science has become such a muddy thing in pop-culture, when it is specifically designed to try and avoid that. Hell, even some of the top PI's at my university that I've worked with don't really get the scientific process.
No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote: No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
Your relentless pursuit of the politically correct is truly remarkable.
To get back on topic, kind of, I just want to comment that I study play, and play has increasingly been one of the things I've noticed Elliot was deprived of. There's a fascinatingTED speech by one of the major american play researchers that might be worth looking at for those of you who do wish to investigate the reasons for his psychopathology. His digressions into WoW metacommentary notwithstanding, the guy clearly didn't have a very healthy developmental environment and lacked a diversity of play, particularly with other people to help him become socialized. This isn't an assertion that play deprivation was a significant factor, but I think it's worth considering. Thoughts?
If we think of "play" as activity undertaken without seeking a specific outcome, it is obvious that Elliot's monomaniacal, outcome-driven value system placed him in a state of great depression.
Play conceived in such terms does cut athwart the common conceptions of play as being attached to a specific activity. Play may or may not be present in any activity. There is a fundamental difference between casual gaming and pro-gaming, between creative writing for yourself, and creative writing for English class, between flirting with girls as a spontaneous outbreak of volition, and applying PUA principles in pursuit of a rigid goal.
I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.
I think members of this forum are fairly well-equipped to understand Rodger's mindset, since many of them can identify with his feelings and motivations, but not with his decision-making process. This is why they feel themselves able to dismiss Rodger's actions, because they were willing to silently suffer what Rodger was unwilling to.
On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote: No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
why can't we be people worth understanding who also have several pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
edit: is it not true that if i poke you with a hot iron, that you will yell and draw away from it? Are you also a human being who has interesting points of view and a completely unique perspective on life (as opposed to my own)?
Yikes. Narcissism, refusal to accept responsibility for his actions & current situation, dehumanizing behavior, martyring himself.
This is what I'm ultimately afraid of when I read girl blogs.
Yea that guy is really messed up. But what really frightens me about this video is that I feel like most of us have somebody like him inside of us, a narcissistic and self-pitying version of ourselves just wanting attention. Except that for 99.99% of us we manage to control and/or deny it, which is a really really good thing for the health of others.That video was disturbing.
On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote: No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
Your relentless pursuit of the politically correct is truly remarkable.
While I'd agree with you while saying that oftentimes what's PC is correct for a reason, in this case my criticism comes more from personal experience. People are easier to deal with when one treats them like a person, it really is that simple. Like someone previously pointed out, much of what PUA teaches will "hook" you the interests of a woman. Once the game of fetch is all said and done, however, and the actual organic process of living in and around another person sets in, the strategies that PUA teaches will do nothing but get in the way of actual intimacy.
On May 29 2014 22:27 farvacola wrote: No, what detracts from the value of PUA is the radical notion that women are people worth understanding as people and not creatures with pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
why can't we be people worth understanding who also have several pre-ordained sets of reactions to specific stimuli.
edit: is it not true that if i poke you with a hot iron, that you will yell and draw away from it? Are you also a human being who has interesting points of view and a completely unique perspective on life (as opposed to my own)?
Thank you for illustrating my point. Only with something like PUA in the background can seducing a woman and being poked with a hot iron be equated.
We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences to accurately predict responses. :p
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
It's what I actually believe, but it doesn't really mesh particularly well with a day-to-day level so I largely ignore it for the purposes of living a fulfilling and interesting life.
On May 29 2014 22:41 Wombat_NI wrote: It's what I actually believe, but it doesn't really mesh particularly well with a day-to-day level so I largely ignore it for the purposes of living a fulfilling and interesting life.
Fair enough, but I've personally resolved it with the knowledge that the universe is constantly being created in every instant. The universe itself can't see the future, so it seems silly that anyone else will be able to. I'd recommend a course in basic quantum mechanics, it introduces some fascinating thoughts to philosophy.
I've always thought that the main problem with PUA is that whenever it succeeds, guys who support it run in circles happy for proving it to be true when in fact, it's the woman who was all set for allowing it to "succeed" from the start and the form of this "seduction" hardly mattered for her as long as it was reasonable and socially acceptable.
Breaching wide open doors never felt so fulfilling and profitable.
I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts.
I was being a tad facetious, but would still tend to the belief that a lot of our core personality traits, views and decisions made from that foundation are relatively fixed once you hit adulthood.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
On May 29 2014 22:51 Wombat_NI wrote: I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts.
I rather like Plato's notion that such thoughts are the remembrance of knowledge long forgotten, inherent in the primitive perfection of the eternal soul.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
On May 29 2014 22:51 Wombat_NI wrote: I've read a bit on that, including the idea that truly 'random' thoughts, or indeed the initial creation of thought is some kind of quantum process and thus humans don't operate like incredibly complicated flowcharts.
I rather like Plato's notion that such thoughts are the remembrance of knowledge long forgotten, inherent in the primitive perfection of the eternal soul.
Dovetails nicely with Buddism right? (Also Scientology)
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate.
Debates have rules. This is more the classic Internet argument of "no read what I wrote and then you prove me wrong!"
On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote: What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."
This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.
Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere.
For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not.
A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!"
Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?
I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.
The key aspect of science that I think is missing from your view is that the scientific method is designed such that you make an effort to prove your hypothesis WRONG. In really good science, you keep pushing and pushing on your theory until it breaks, and then when it does, you change it to make it better. The fact that science is falsifiable is a real key aspect that is missing here. This is really important because it helps you narrow down causation as opposed to correlation. For the same reasons, you also need things like control groups and large cohorts to be able to substantiate claims based on standardized criteria. PUA does not offer this, it is simply a large collection of anecdotal evidence. And while that has value of its own, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Please don't get me wrong, I have no opinion on PUA, either positive of negative (hell I hardly even knew the community existed until a few days ago), but claiming it is science is bullshit. This does not, however, detract from any value it might have, as you have correctly pointed out.
edit: to be fair, I think your misconceptions about science are not among the worst, and I find that approaching things in the 'hypothesis->experiment->observe->report" (edit2: I also was very deliberate about replacing your word theory with hypothesis , I'm hoping to spread this terminology so that theory doesn't get diluted) methodology is, overall, a good one. However, this is more akin to exploration than it is to science. I get frustrated sometimes that science has become such a muddy thing in pop-culture, when it is specifically designed to try and avoid that. Hell, even some of the top PI's at my university that I've worked with don't really get the scientific process.
As I said, for me it's not even a discussion about whether pickup is a science or not. It's not. But that's also completely irrelevant if people are debating whether it's a community that can offer immense improvement for the quality of life of an individual. In the end it comes down to the various pickup communities being the only place an individual (both male and female) can go when they want to improve the way they deal with the opposite sex among people with the exact same goal.
But, welp, the majority of the discussion still seems stuck in "I gave it label X and I associate label X with horrible things so it must be horrible" with lots and lots of uninformed opinions around. It's literally equivalent to the media almost exclusively blaming violent video games in other cases.
PS: Cheers for the hypothesis vs theory, I knew something was wrong. =P
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
That would be a vast improvement over the psudioscience discussion and creepy discussions on how to pick up the ladies.
I concur. I find it amazing that the thread hasn't been moderated yet, because this is offensively off topic.
true. This basically has become the PUA debate thread. If you can call it a debate.
Debates have rules. This is more the classic Internet argument of "no read what I wrote and then you prove me wrong!"
well, i thought that there were a couple of redeeming posts in this mess, and I didn't want to devalue them by calling it a shit-flinging circus. But yeah....
On May 29 2014 17:59 r.Evo wrote: What the heck guys. Pickup-/dating communities and "PUA" in general (keep in mind that I can count the people from those communities on one hand that enjoy associating with that word) are not scientific communities. The roots however lie in a scientific approach to the topic of dating. Have idea, test out idea, compare results with others and work out what works best for which kind of people.
Now, if you're asking whether certain methods and approaches within the pickup communities have a scientific background (note the difference to "PUA is science!"): Of course they do. Pickup communities by definition look at various concepts when it comes to human interaction, apply them to dating and try to figure out how "efficient" they are.
You take something that is in most cases incredibly simple like rapport and look how various non-dating related groups try and work with it. What makes the pickup communities classic "pseudo-scientific" is that they don't discriminate at all. Your average community doesn't care if information as to "How to build rapport?" comes from their grandmother, a salesman, a shrink, NLP students or a professor of psychology - they look at what those people do, try it out in field and try to figure out whether it works for them. If it does, they share it with others that share the same basic interest and that is, in a nutshell, how every single concept that is commonly accepted in various dating communities is built up.
One has to understand that such an approach is both "not scientific" (there won't be an officially peer reviewed paper since the peers doing the reviewing are similar to people on teamliquid talking about how and why a guide for something SC2 or Dota related is shit or awesome) but also incredibly advanced at the same time since the community is almost exclusively outcome oriented in the pursuit of its goals.
Gaming is actually a pretty damn awesome comparison - have you ever seen a scientific peer reviewed document that talks about which fingers are most efficient at pressing which keys in which order? I haven't, but I'd listen to people from a starcraft forum more than anyone else on the topic because they're trying to figure it out by practicing it.
If, for whatever reason, you end up having more sex than before after approaching girls with your face painted pink you can be pretty damn sure that the one group of people genuinely interested in how the heck that worked will be the PUA communities.
In Germany there is a well-established conceptual differentiation between the academic and applies sciences. The Realschule as originally conceived was designed to emphasise tacit over explicit knowledge. What is explicit is generally better at creating networks of relations and meanings than they are at engineering specific outcomes. In the English language the word "science" has come to mean only codified, transferable knowledge. As Alan Sandage said: "Physicists, by and large, are Platonists who seek reality in the archetypes behind the scenes. Non-scientists, by and large, are Kierkegaardians for whom the subjectivity of life and thought is more real than scientific models."
This is merely a semantic shift, what is more important is the almost cult-like gullibility with which the mass of dilettantes have come to worship the name of "science", and seek to tear down the legitimacy of their opponents by tarring their thoughts with the label of "pseudo-science," when that pseudo-science may be of great instrumental value.
Thank you for this, I was already wondering why it feels weird trying to explain this difference in English, but I actually didn't think about this being a concept that just isn't established as strongly elsewhere.
For me I have issues understanding how someone can see such a process (Theory -> Experiment -> Observation -> Exchange of results with others -> Repeat) as not scientific. Essentially a child exploring the world around it trying to understand how it works is no different from people in a starcraft forum trying to find the best strategies or literally anyone who tries to become better at anything that isn't mostly explored or solved yet (which includes something like pickup). The major difference to straight up academic science is that when trying to understand the conclusions and solutions one has to think for oneself if the things presented make sense or not.
A big deal is that the way the majority of users seem to think about "PUA" is treating it as one coherent and complete unit when in reality it's a huge muddy pool of hundreds upon hundreds of ideas, methods and mindsets to achieve one common goal. In fact saying "PUA is stupid and doesn't work" or "PUA has nothing to do with science" is equivalent to saying "Starcraft guides on Teamliquid don't work, I tried some and lost and where are my peer-reviewed papers on why build xyz is supposed to make me win more?!"
Particularly itchy is the alacrity with which many posters are willing to brush the Rodger problem under the rug as mere "psychopathy" and nothing more. Is this not an act of psychopathy in itself? Or does psychopathy only manifest itself when the object of our responsibilities is a normative social abstraction, rather than a unique human being?
I don't think that's an issue at all. In a nutshell the reason people commit crimes like that is because they go nuts. I don't think anyone who isn't a psychopath can fully understand the mindset and reasoning of one. Sure, there are dozens of factors that can be questioned when we ask "Why did this end like it did?" but in the end it can be thought of like any other disease: Some specific combination of influences for a specific individual caused it to not work properly anymore. - This does not imply at all that any of those specific influences in any quantity will cause the same in someone else.
The key aspect of science that I think is missing from your view is that the scientific method is designed such that you make an effort to prove your hypothesis WRONG. In really good science, you keep pushing and pushing on your theory until it breaks, and then when it does, you change it to make it better. The fact that science is falsifiable is a real key aspect that is missing here. This is really important because it helps you narrow down causation as opposed to correlation. For the same reasons, you also need things like control groups and large cohorts to be able to substantiate claims based on standardized criteria. PUA does not offer this, it is simply a large collection of anecdotal evidence. And while that has value of its own, it is NOT SCIENTIFIC. Please don't get me wrong, I have no opinion on PUA, either positive of negative (hell I hardly even knew the community existed until a few days ago), but claiming it is science is bullshit. This does not, however, detract from any value it might have, as you have correctly pointed out.
edit: to be fair, I think your misconceptions about science are not among the worst, and I find that approaching things in the 'hypothesis->experiment->observe->report" (edit2: I also was very deliberate about replacing your word theory with hypothesis , I'm hoping to spread this terminology so that theory doesn't get diluted) methodology is, overall, a good one. However, this is more akin to exploration than it is to science. I get frustrated sometimes that science has become such a muddy thing in pop-culture, when it is specifically designed to try and avoid that. Hell, even some of the top PI's at my university that I've worked with don't really get the scientific process.
As I said, for me it's not even a discussion about whether pickup is a science or not. It's not. But that's also completely irrelevant if people are debating whether it's a community that can offer immense improvement for the quality of life of an individual. In the end it comes down to the various pickup communities being the only place an individual (both male and female) can go when they want to improve the way they deal with the opposite sex among people with the exact same goal.
But, welp, the majority of the discussion still seems stuck in "I gave it label X and I associate label X with horrible things so it must be horrible" with lots and lots of uninformed opinions around. It's literally equivalent to the media almost exclusively blaming violent video games in other cases.
PS: Cheers for the hypothesis vs theory, I knew something was wrong. =P
I very much agree with your mentality, I just felt like I need to clarify since I am heavily invested in science, and since science is VERY concerned with semantics and in a specific kind of clarity, I felt that the PUA community should not be grouped with them. As I said before, I haven't done enough research into PUA to be able to say one thing or another about it (most of my opinions about it have come from this thread, which is totally hearsay), but I do know enough about science and the scientific method to be able to weigh in on whether or not PUA is scientific or not. And, of course, I also agree with your sentiment that putting the tag SCIENCE on something or even removing it doesn't necessarily say anything about its value. There are plenty of unscientific things that provide great value and plenty of scientific things that are basically useless. Science just tells you HOW you got your knowledge, not whether or not it's useful.
tl:dr, the word science is very important to me XD
On May 29 2014 17:01 urboss wrote: The alpha/beta male distinction is correct, but the conclusions the PUA community draws from this are vastly incorrect.
Anyone who tries to emulate alpha male behavior is by definition not an alpha male!
Alpha/beta/omega has a specific connotation within zoology that doesn't apply to humans, because we're not pack hunters and we don't have true pecking orders. In this case it's just an artificial label attached to confidence, which is something that varies based on setting and context.
I'm not sure if you're intending to do it, but you should not use the PUA alpha/beta terminology when discussing scientific articles and animal behavior, because it's just going to confuse things and misleads people into thinking alpha males/females really exist within human society.
I'm interested in your statement 'we're not pack hunters and we don't have true pecking orders'. Can you elaborate on this please?
It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
On May 30 2014 00:45 Nyxisto wrote: It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
Say that you go out to meet up with a girl, you need to know what you gotta say in order to impress them.
You gotta plan out a certain string of topics' general trends.
And you know that you want to go to a fancy restaurant but can't afford it. So you work a bit overtime to make up for the money.
She likes this type of flowers, so you gotta sometime plan ahead to go to a florist so she'll be "woo"ed by.
If you are doing these things, then you are applying PUA.
All of those things seems relative so-called "normal" or "innocent", the matter of the fact as humans, we all do these things subconsciously and PUA took notice of these details and found ways to expound upon them.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
On May 29 2014 22:37 Wombat_NI wrote: We're all just robots without free will anyway, just some of the pre-ordained responses are too complex and involve too many interrelating influences :p
eew, that's such a boring and pointless way of looking at things.
hopefully it's tongue in cheek given your smiley face at the end.
given religion; over half the world looks at things this way, but never thinks about it hard enough.
OHGODNO dont bring religion in here man. It's already scary enough in here/
This becomes the new thread for "everything". Soon people will start posting cat videos in here.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
I just assumed he was referring to the Illuminati, which makes it even easier to dismiss most of the things he says.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
I'm married to one. When are our Illuminati jackets arriving?
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
Not only men but among the top people.
And its in one specific area of life - to know how to attract women.
People that knows those techniques and recognize the skills are indeed a very rare breed because as demonstrated in the threat, majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
I just assumed he was referring to the Illuminati, which makes it even easier to dismiss most of the things he says.
Well if you want to call, the attraction between men and women, to be involved in an Illuminati, then send me a jacket as well.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
I'm married to one. When are our Illuminati jackets arriving?
Fuck that, I want a robe and a staff. My girl is also a drummer in a rock band, so I'm their messiah, sent I lead them to the promised land!
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Wow. So much wow. I can't even begin to discribe how amazing this comment is.
So because I am engaged to a beautiful, fun, video game loving woman, does that make me the leader of this elite group of men?
I'm married to one. When are our Illuminati jackets arriving?
Fuck that, I want a robe and a staff. My girl is also a drummer in a rock band, so I'm their messiah, sent I lead them to the promised land!
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
On May 30 2014 00:45 Nyxisto wrote: It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
Say that you go out to meet up with a girl, you need to know what you gotta say in order to impress them.
You gotta plan out a certain string of topics' general trends.
And you know that you want to go to a fancy restaurant but can't afford it. So you work a bit overtime to make up for the money.
She likes this type of flowers, so you gotta sometime plan ahead to go to a florist so she'll be "woo"ed by.
If you are doing these things, then you are applying PUA.
All of those things seems relative so-called "normal" or "innocent", the matter of the fact as humans, we all do these things subconsciously and PUA took notice of these details and found ways to expound upon them.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Oh that's funny, it sounds kinda like a french piece of theater of Molière, called "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme". At some point, a random dude convince the main character that he is doing prose without knowing it, like he is doing some kind of advanced and modern poetry. All that to flatter his ego. Well, guess what, the main character is a fool.
On May 30 2014 00:45 Nyxisto wrote: It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
Say that you go out to meet up with a girl, you need to know what you gotta say in order to impress them.
You gotta plan out a certain string of topics' general trends.
And you know that you want to go to a fancy restaurant but can't afford it. So you work a bit overtime to make up for the money.
She likes this type of flowers, so you gotta sometime plan ahead to go to a florist so she'll be "woo"ed by.
If you are doing these things, then you are applying PUA.
All of those things seems relative so-called "normal" or "innocent", the matter of the fact as humans, we all do these things subconsciously and PUA took notice of these details and found ways to expound upon them.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Oh that's funny, it sounds kinda like a french piece of theater of Molière, called "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme". At some point, a random dude convince the main character that he is doing prose without knowing it, like he is doing some kind of advanced and modern poetry. All that to flatter his ego. Well, guess what, the main character is a fool.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
On May 30 2014 00:45 Nyxisto wrote: It doesn't matter if the pua stuff is science or not, point is if you go out and have a few drinks with your buddies you don't use the newest scientific conversation techniques, you just are a normal person. So why do people feel the need just because they're talking to the opposite sex to fall into some kind of armchair psychology mode, which is super awkward and obvious to every half-intelligent listener anyway?
Say that you go out to meet up with a girl, you need to know what you gotta say in order to impress them.
You gotta plan out a certain string of topics' general trends.
And you know that you want to go to a fancy restaurant but can't afford it. So you work a bit overtime to make up for the money.
She likes this type of flowers, so you gotta sometime plan ahead to go to a florist so she'll be "woo"ed by.
If you are doing these things, then you are applying PUA.
All of those things seems relative so-called "normal" or "innocent", the matter of the fact as humans, we all do these things subconsciously and PUA took notice of these details and found ways to expound upon them.
And by the way, majority of the people on Earth are not that "smart", there are only a few men who can come together and discuss this level of "scientific" philosophy. So you can learn something that can truly change yoour life.
Oh that's funny, it sounds kinda like a french piece of theater of Molière, called "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme". At some point, a random dude convince the main character that he is doing prose without knowing it, like he is doing some kind of advanced and modern poetry. All that to flatter his ego. Well, guess what, the main character is a fool.
Wow, I studied that a long time ago, but let me try.
All book long, the main character tries to get in "bourgeoisie", which was the class under nobles, basically rich people with their silly manners (at that time). So all he does is try to emulate said manners, getting advice from "experts" of all kind. But in the end, all he does is making these experts a bit richer. He's getting fooled, and that was all I said
Now, to further expand on that and PUA (can't believe I got dragged in talking about that..), I would think that the same thing is happening in some form. PUA moslty profits those who sell stuff about it. Those who achieve "girls" (I haaaaate that way of seeing stuff but whatever) are most likely just a bit more confident than they would be without PUA techniques, and that can be the difference between actually trying and seeing you as a loser from the start. That's just my point of view, of course, and I don't know much about PUA. Nor do I want to, I achieved a good level of confidence for my own sake, not to pick up girls.
Edit : actually, he was a bourgeois trying to become a noble. Same stuff, different class, irrelevant.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
It's in Cnn(on my phone, so I can't link). The basic idea is that direct family can make a request to the police that the mentally ill person is a danger and should have the fire arms removed. The police then review the request and take it before a judge if they think it is necessary. If allowed, they collect the guns. Clearly ther would need to be sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the guns.
It addresses the saddest part of this case, which was that the family knew he was going to do something violent, but there was no system on place to the police to stop it. That is a issue that is worth debating.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
that actually does make a lot of sense to me as well. This way, it's not a situation of 'oh noes, big bad gov't is taking away my guns', and it also makes sense that families would be most fit to make the judgement of whether or not someone should own a gun. The biggest problem with gun laws that I've had is that general government bans simply A) don't work very well, and B) don't really address the fact that it's people killing each other, not guns killing people. I could def get behind a policy where family members and loved ones can, i guess, basically petition to have firearms removed from an individual if they feel as though the individual poses a threat. It would also makes the whole process more focused, which I like.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
It's in Cnn(on my phone, so I can't link). The basic idea is that direct family can make a request to the police that the mentally ill person is a danger and should have the fire arms removed. The police then review the request and take it before a judge if they think it is necessary. If allowed, they collect the guns. Clearly ther would need to be sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the guns.
It addresses the saddest part of this case, which was that the family knew he was going to do something violent, but there was no system on place to the police to stop it. That is a issue that is worth debating.
I agree with you, the fact that the family knew this was coming and was powerless to stop it is awful. I cannot imagine the horror of watching this play out knowing that it was possible in advance.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
that actually does make a lot of sense to me as well. This way, it's not a situation of 'oh noes, big bad gov't is taking away my guns', and it also makes sense that families would be most fit to make the judgement of whether or not someone should own a gun. The biggest problem with gun laws that I've had is that general government bans simply A) don't work very well, and B) don't really address the fact that it's people killing each other, not guns killing people. I could def get behind a policy where family members and loved ones can, i guess, basically petition to have firearms removed from an individual if they feel as though the individual poses a threat. It would also makes the whole process more focused, which I like.
Not all would be in such a position to have a caring family though.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
that actually does make a lot of sense to me as well. This way, it's not a situation of 'oh noes, big bad gov't is taking away my guns', and it also makes sense that families would be most fit to make the judgement of whether or not someone should own a gun. The biggest problem with gun laws that I've had is that general government bans simply A) don't work very well, and B) don't really address the fact that it's people killing each other, not guns killing people. I could def get behind a policy where family members and loved ones can, i guess, basically petition to have firearms removed from an individual if they feel as though the individual poses a threat. It would also makes the whole process more focused, which I like.
Not all would be in such a position to have a caring family though.
The proposal includes intimate partners and friends too.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
that actually does make a lot of sense to me as well. This way, it's not a situation of 'oh noes, big bad gov't is taking away my guns', and it also makes sense that families would be most fit to make the judgement of whether or not someone should own a gun. The biggest problem with gun laws that I've had is that general government bans simply A) don't work very well, and B) don't really address the fact that it's people killing each other, not guns killing people. I could def get behind a policy where family members and loved ones can, i guess, basically petition to have firearms removed from an individual if they feel as though the individual poses a threat. It would also makes the whole process more focused, which I like.
Not all would be in such a position to have a caring family though.
true. But it would help some people, and do so without affecting the rest of the population. Also, I don't think creating a policy to take care of all individuals and all situations is productive.
majority of the people don't exactly know that we are, fundamentally all "PUA"s.
Unless your definition of PUA is radically different then mine, then that is quite some projection of your values on the whole of humanity.
But I think this thread has derailed far enough. Back on topic *cracks whip.
All right, we will keep our comic stylings I check.
Apparently CA is now trying to draft a law for a gun restraining order to allow families to remove fire arms from the possession of troubled loved ones. That seems the most sensible solution I've heard in a while.
Do you have a link with details? Do the police take care of removing the firearms? That does seem like an ok idea.
that actually does make a lot of sense to me as well. This way, it's not a situation of 'oh noes, big bad gov't is taking away my guns', and it also makes sense that families would be most fit to make the judgement of whether or not someone should own a gun. The biggest problem with gun laws that I've had is that general government bans simply A) don't work very well, and B) don't really address the fact that it's people killing each other, not guns killing people. I could def get behind a policy where family members and loved ones can, i guess, basically petition to have firearms removed from an individual if they feel as though the individual poses a threat. It would also makes the whole process more focused, which I like.
Not all would be in such a position to have a caring family though.
true. But it would help some people, and do so without affecting the rest of the population. Also, I don't think creating a policy to take care of all individuals and all situations is productive.
Yes and rather than creating some weird blanket law, this involves human interaction and decision making. It doesn't increase existing gun law, but makes a system where someone's gun license can be revoked if they display dangerous behaviors. It seems like a very targeted law.
If someone is unstable enough that people are afraid they are going to hurt someone with their guns, taking away their guns is probably just the first thing we should be doing. Like many people said there are other avenues for violence and these people need help.
On May 30 2014 02:20 Cynry wrote: Wow, I studied that a long time ago, but let me try.
All book long, the main character tries to get in "bourgeoisie", which was the class under nobles, basically rich people with their silly manners (at that time). So all he does is try to emulate said manners, getting advice from "experts" of all kind. But in the end, all he does is making these experts a bit richer. He's getting fooled, and that was all I said
Now, to further expand on that and PUA (can't believe I got dragged in talking about that..), I would think that the same thing is happening in some form. PUA moslty profits those who sell stuff about it. Those who achieve "girls" (I haaaaate that way of seeing stuff but whatever) are most likely just a bit more confident than they would be without PUA techniques, and that can be the difference between actually trying and seeing you as a loser from the start. That's just my point of view, of course, and I don't know much about PUA. Nor do I want to, I achieved a good level of confidence for my own sake, not to pick up girls.
Edit : actually, he was a bourgeois trying to become a noble. Same stuff, different class, irrelevant.
I would take this concept further. Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme was an aristocratic satire (Moliere wrote for a court audience) of the socially ambitious bourgeoisie. Monsieur Jourdan was a bourgeois who attempted to ape aristocratic tastes and manners and made a fool of himself, because he was attempting to acquire by education what was naturally acquired by birth. Written in a different social context, Monsieur Jourdan would have been a lampoon of the emancipated Jew.
The situation of a base figure pretending to be higher than his nature is not only the essence of this comedy; it is the essence of all comedy. However, for the comedy to work, that figure must not only be base, he must be unaware of his baseness. What makes the character of Monsieur Jourdan work is his obliviousness.
When that character loses his obliviousness, and realises his baseness, the pathos of the play is transformed from the comic to the tragic. The response of the audience turns from laughter to hushed sympathy at the plight of pride brought low. Shakespeare's Timon of Athens is such an example of this.
When I first saw Rodger's youtube videos, I thought he was ridiculous as well; a puffed up loser. Reading his manifesto though, I became aware of his awareness, and the figure doesn't quite seem so funny anymore.
On May 30 2014 02:20 Cynry wrote: Wow, I studied that a long time ago, but let me try.
All book long, the main character tries to get in "bourgeoisie", which was the class under nobles, basically rich people with their silly manners (at that time). So all he does is try to emulate said manners, getting advice from "experts" of all kind. But in the end, all he does is making these experts a bit richer. He's getting fooled, and that was all I said
Now, to further expand on that and PUA (can't believe I got dragged in talking about that..), I would think that the same thing is happening in some form. PUA moslty profits those who sell stuff about it. Those who achieve "girls" (I haaaaate that way of seeing stuff but whatever) are most likely just a bit more confident than they would be without PUA techniques, and that can be the difference between actually trying and seeing you as a loser from the start. That's just my point of view, of course, and I don't know much about PUA. Nor do I want to, I achieved a good level of confidence for my own sake, not to pick up girls.
Edit : actually, he was a bourgeois trying to become a noble. Same stuff, different class, irrelevant.
I would take this concept further. Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme was an aristocratic satire (Moliere wrote for a court audience) of the socially ambitious bourgeoisie. Monsieur Jourdan was a bourgeois who attempted to ape aristocratic tastes and manners and made a fool of himself, because he was attempting to acquire by education what was naturally acquired by birth. Written in a different social context, Monsieur Jourdan would have been a lampoon of the emancipated Jew.
The situation of a base figure pretending to be higher than his nature is not only the essence of this comedy; it is the essence of all comedy. However, for the comedy to work, that figure must not only be base, he must be unaware of his baseness. What makes the character of Monsieur Jourdan work is his obliviousness.
When that character loses his obliviousness, and realises his baseness, the pathos of the play is transformed from the comic to the tragic. The response of the audience turns from laughter to hushed sympathy at the plight of pride brought low. Shakespeare's Timon of Athens is such an example of this.
When I first saw Rodger's youtube videos, I thought he was ridiculous as well; a puffed up loser. Reading his manifesto though, I became aware of his awareness, and the figure doesn't quite seem so funny anymore.
@MoltkeWarding I assume you didn't think I was drawing any parallel between Jourdain and Rodger, because you just did that on your own. Although it wasn't my point, I like where you took that concept, but I never thought of Rodger as funny or ridiculous. Both are vain and capricious, Jourdain wants to get to a better position, Rodger wanted to get out of negative one (being virgin). Not sure there's much more to that though.
About his manifesto, how expanded was his self awareness ? Did he saw what was the issue with girls, which I assume was his attitude ? Did he saw that his reactions to all this and consequent plans were...crazy ?
There is very little in any of the material Rogers produced that suggests that his self-awareness comes anywhere near that of Timon of Athens or Monsieur Jourdan. Life imitates art both in truth and illusion.
On May 30 2014 04:21 Cynry wrote: @MoltkeWarding I assume you didn't think I was drawing any parallel between Jourdain and Rodger, because you just did that on your own. Although it wasn't my point, I like where you took that concept, but I never thought of Rodger as funny or ridiculous. Both are vain and capricious, Jourdain wants to get to a better position, Rodger wanted to get out of negative one (being virgin). Not sure there's much more to that though.
About his manifesto, how expanded was his self awareness ? Did he saw what was the issue with girls, which I assume was his attitude ? Did he saw that his reactions to all this and consequent plans were...crazy ?
He made awareness that he was getting love from his mother, stepmother, or any womanly figure in his life. And then he further notices how there were one specific type of guys were getting love from girls that he wasn't getting.
In his YouTube video and manifesto, it was a constant theme for him that sort realized that plans were a bit over-the-top but he radically justified on the reason for a such "necessity".
He had this Utopian, communist ideology that men and women are the same that he wanted to create and was hoping that this act could make it more "positive" for the society.
On May 30 2014 04:27 farvacola wrote: There is very little in any of the material Rogers produced that suggests that his self-awareness comes anywhere near that of Timon of Athens or Monsieur Jourdan. Life imitates art both in truth and illusion.
On the contrary, Rodger's writing betrays self-awareness if nothing else. His autobiography is a self-examination even more than a self-justification. If he had not ended his writing with the determination to carry out his rampage, it would be a fact universally acknowledged, but that he ends upon this determination does not negate his search for why he was doing so. He was able to do that with a fairly detached eye.
Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
It was mentioned numerous of time that he finds differences between him and the guys that were getting girls. I don't specific remember if he mentioned anything specific regarding it but it was a direct quote that he considered them to be "brutes". And to elucidate, he is probably referring to those "frat boys".
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
I do not see how that question is demonstrably different from what he pursued in his memoirs. The question is merely seeking answers, which he did. The existence of the question does not imply however the existence of an answer. When the existence of an answer is presumed, that leads to rationalisation.
We are also dealing with a festering depression which no amount of rationalisation would mend, lest that rationalisation could be proven useful as well as logical. You could contemplate your sadness all you want, but that does not necessarily deprive you of your sadness.
I don't think you can say he was self aware, except perhaps in the last few moments of his life. I also reject the notion of this murderer as a comic/tragic figure.
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
I do not see how that question is demonstrably different from what he pursued in his memoirs. The question is merely seeking answers, which he did. The existence of the question does not imply however the existence of an answer. When the existence of an answer is presumed, that leads to rationalisation.
I guess my question then is : where was he seeking answers ? Was he putting himself in the victim position, which seems to be the case (that's because of what was done to me, that's because women are dumb and thus reject me etc) or did he ever consider himself to be the problem ?
This discussion brought me a memory of an old satirical drawing:
A man and a woman sit together by the table: M: Sigh... I wonder... Why on Earth everyone I know hates me? W: Maybe because you're ugly, narcissistic, condescending jerk? M: There must be some other reason...
Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
I do not see how that question is demonstrably different from what he pursued in his memoirs. The question is merely seeking answers, which he did. The existence of the question does not imply however the existence of an answer. When the existence of an answer is presumed, that leads to rationalisation.
I guess my question then is : where was he seeking answers ? Was he putting himself in the victim position, which seems to be the case (that's because of what was done to me, that's because women are dumb and thus reject me etc) or did he ever consider himself to be the problem ?
Well given the fact that on the last two or three pages of his 'manifesto' he talks about putting all women in concentration camps while he is the lone ruler of the world I don't think he has taken that thought into consideration.
This guy was batshit insane. He may have been lucid enough to understand that he had a pretty rough time in his life, but he clearly needed medical help and should have never had access to firearms.
On May 30 2014 05:29 Plansix wrote: Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
On May 30 2014 05:29 Plansix wrote: Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
His life wasn't even that sad.
From our perspectives, it might not have been, but he felt tortured by his life. No amount of wealth or privilege can do anything about that if you're unhappy with more or less every aspect of your life. I suppose saying that his life was sad doesn't quite capture the full reality of it, but he definitely was.
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
I do not see how that question is demonstrably different from what he pursued in his memoirs. The question is merely seeking answers, which he did. The existence of the question does not imply however the existence of an answer. When the existence of an answer is presumed, that leads to rationalisation.
I guess my question then is : where was he seeking answers ? Was he putting himself in the victim position, which seems to be the case (that's because of what was done to me, that's because women are dumb and thus reject me etc) or did he ever consider himself to be the problem ?
Well, as I mentioned earlier, he tried different strategies, confidence and morale-boosting tricks, and putting himself in alternative situations. So as far as alterable conditions go, he tried to mix them up and see whether any of them would lead him to success. However, what do you do when the answer to "what is wrong with me" is something immutable in yourself?
Which leads me to question whether the two things which he did not really attempt to explain were really compulsive qualities in his psyche: his obsessive pursuit of "sex and love", and his extreme social pessimism. He had a low understanding of other people's actions beyond how they made him feel, hence his frequent feelings of rage. He was not "mind aware" in the sense that he could see himself from the eyes of other people, but self-awareness? Definitely so, in my opinion.
On May 30 2014 05:29 Plansix wrote: Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
His life wasn't even that sad.
I'm just saying it's sad that he felt so isolated and clearly had issues relating to people. His choices are not sad, mostly just crazy and self intrested, which is what we would expect from a murderer.
On May 29 2014 18:56 Jumperer wrote: if I want to get better at something I look at the top people in that field and see what similar traits that they have, what are they generally doing and go from there. I don't really care if a method is scientifically-correct or not. If it works then it works. If it doesn't work then I discard it and move on.
Same. Ultimately, getting results is what matter most. When others have put the effort & time to be the top in their field, what they say has more weight. Would someone listen to Michael Jordon or an amateur about basketball? Same applies to men who are great with getting tons of women compared to men who are at best, average at it. What's worse is the bitterness from the success of others. Maybe this is a social evolutionary hierarchical trait? People who constantly evolve to better themselves while the rest are resilient to changes.
Elliot Rodgers failed to get every result that he wanted. Perhaps he was unwilling to admit to himself that he wasn't good enough. If he is not wrong then society must be wrong!
On May 30 2014 05:02 Cynry wrote: Thing is, all that to me is just his "crazy delirium" (lack of better word) going further and deeper. Building some sort of reasoning to justifiy your mindset and acts isn't self awareness. Self awareness would be something like "I am an overall attractive guy, if I can't get girls there's probably something wrong with me that I haven't seen yet". Anything like that in his manifesto ?
I do not see how that question is demonstrably different from what he pursued in his memoirs. The question is merely seeking answers, which he did. The existence of the question does not imply however the existence of an answer. When the existence of an answer is presumed, that leads to rationalisation.
I guess my question then is : where was he seeking answers ? Was he putting himself in the victim position, which seems to be the case (that's because of what was done to me, that's because women are dumb and thus reject me etc) or did he ever consider himself to be the problem ?
However, what do you do when the answer to "what is wrong with me" is something immutable in yourself?
Which leads me to question whether the two things which he did not really attempt to explain were really compulsive qualities in his psyche: his obsessive pursuit of "sex and love", and his extreme social pessimism.
First thing first, I'm not trying to counterargument your points, which I find interesting, only to further my understanding of this guy.
So, about your question. Answer seems simple, you work your way "around" the immutable thing. I know of a couple bipolar people for example, first thing to do is to acknowledge your disease and plan your life accordingly. Thing is, I guess, he didn't aknowledge his disease. Or maybe he did, hence my questions, because if that's the case I really don't understand anymore.
Your second paragraph seems to be going that way too. If he asks himself so many questions, yet missed these 2 crucial components, he circumvented his main issues.
On May 30 2014 05:29 Plansix wrote: Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
His life wasn't even that sad.
From our perspectives, it might not have been, but he felt tortured by his life. No amount of wealth or privilege can do anything about that if you're unhappy with more or less every aspect of your life. I suppose saying that his life was sad doesn't quite capture the full reality of it, but he definitely was.
I agree. I'm not trying to negate the notion that he felt tortured, because he did. He was clearly miserable. I'm trying to negate the notion that his life was objectively sad, or that he is some kind of tragic figure, because that is just wrong.
On May 30 2014 05:29 Plansix wrote: Agreed. His life is sad, but most murders lives are in some way. It doesn't make up for the fear and horror he inflicted on the people he killed. He stabbed his roommate to death. He also expressed a desire to kill his 6 year old step brother. Not matter how sad his life was, it doesn't justify the fear and pain he inflicted on his victims.
His life wasn't even that sad.
I'm just saying it's sad that he felt so isolated and clearly had issues relating to people. His choices are not sad, mostly just crazy and self intrested, which is what we would expect from a murderer.
Yes, I agree. I'm just trying to negate the notion (which some posters, not you, seem to have) that his life was objectively sad.
Here is what Rodger says about the sex obsession in his own words:
At one time towards the end of the trip, when I had a sleepover with Ayman at Soumaya's father's house, he showed me some European porn videos in the middle of the night. I could observe the act of sex in much more detail than that one glimpse I had at Planet Cyber. I didn't want to look, but my curiosity got the better of me. To see a video of human being doing such weird and unspeakable things with each other revolted me. I couldn't understand what I was seeing. And yet, I noticed I was feeling aroused. I felt desire to do these things, to have sex with the naked women I saw in the video. It was a funny feeling that overwhelmed my entire body. I could feel my penis getting hard. This was when I noticed that I was finally going through puberty. Heavens save me.
And shortly later:
I developed a very high sex drive, and it would always remain like this. This was the start of hell for me. Going through puberty utterly doomed my existence. It condemned me to live a life of suffering and unfulfilled desires. Even at that young age, I felt depressed because I wanted sex, yet I felt unworthy of it. I didn't think I was ever going to experience sex in reality, and I was right. I never did. I was finally interested in girls, but there was no way I could ever get them. And so my starvation began.
The boys in my grade talked about sex a lot. Some of them even told me that they had sex with their girlfriends. This was the most devastating and traumatic thing I've ever heard in my life. Boys having sex at my age of Fourteen? I couldn't fathom it. How is it that they were able to have such intimate and pleasurable experiences with girls while I could only fantasize about it?
In his story, his sex drive was a villain as much as any of his human oppressors. He obviously experienced it and conceived of it as an malignant impulse of nature, and although he could rationalise it, he could not control it.
All of this built up to his sense of moral outrage: If the world treated him unfairly, why should he treat the world fairly? He could rationalise and internalise and circumvent, and be resigned to accept the world for what it is, but to what end? To give love to that which oppressed him? To turn the other cheek? As he judged the matter, to do so was beneath his pride, to prove one's own weakness.
This past weekend, a student named Elliot Rodger from Santa Barbara City College killed six and injured 13, the latest in a long series of school shootings that are all but becoming a normal part of American tradition. As usual, the killer left a cache of material behind to explain his intentions and milk as much publicity for his personal grievances as possible. This time, the focus was on women, and how they wouldn’t have sex with him.
Like they always do, the media have descended to explain away the madness. And like a Rorschach Test, each outlet had its own pet cause primed and ready to be read into the situation.
Gun control advocates used the event as an opportunity to campaign for stricter gun control, despite the fact that Rodger bought his guns legally and easily passed the background checks. Mental health advocates used it as an opportunity to urge better mental health care, despite the fact that Rodger had had a small army of therapists and social workers working with him for practically his entire life. Feminists used it as an opportunity to promote awareness for violence against women, despite the fact that Rodger killed indiscriminately and the majority of the victims turned out to be men. Social justice advocates used it as an opportunity to rail against white male entitlement, despite the fact that Rodger was mixed race and a significant number of school shooters have also been minorities (Two examples: Seung-Hui Cho and Kimveer Gill).
All of these issues are legitimate and deserve conversation. But they are not the singular cause. They’re not the point.
Because of my book, I’m connected within the men’s dating advice industry. And many of them are scrambling right now. Elliot Rodger was a member of a number of sites, email lists and Facebook groups. And all of these authors and dating coaches — some of them legitimately decent men, others shady marketers — are all frantically trying to cover their tracks as best as possible.
But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.
Every school shooting incident comes in the same dreary package: an angry, politically-charged rant, shrink-wrapped around a core of mental illness and neglect. These shooters leave behind journals, videos, diagrams, manifestos and treatises. They broadcast their plans and intentions to their friends and family. They email news outlets minutes before they start firing. They write down their plans and make checklists so that others may follow in their footsteps. They go on angry rants against materialism, hedonism, the government, mass media, women, and sometimes even the people close to them.
And each time, as a culture, we work ourselves into a frenzy debating the angry exterior message, while ignoring the interior life and context of each killer. We miss the point entirely.
Mass Shootings as Non-Political Terrorism
For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.
When viewed in this way, our responses to the school shooters looks juvenile in comparison. Can you imagine arguing over whether misogyny made Osama Bin Laden plan September 11th? Or whether video games caused Dhokhar Tsarnaev to plant bombs at the Boston Marathon? Or whether heavy music inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City?
You would be laughed at.
And in fact, when anyone goes as far as to suggest that Islam causes terrorism, they are immediately and rightfully scolded for it. Yet when it comes to school shootings, these types of discussions are not only tolerated, but engaged in willfully.
It’s not that we should respond to school shootings the same way we respond to terrorist attacks. It’s that we already do. We just don’t realize it.
When Elliot’s creepy YouTube videos went public, declaring vengeance upon every college girl that wouldn’t sleep with him, every woman who had ever heard a guy mutter something similar suddenly felt a chill run up her spine. And that chill caused the video to be posted and reposted, sending more chills up more women’s spines until it had spread across the country. My guess is that’s exactly what Elliot would have wanted.
And we’ve seen this viral dissemination over and over again. After every school shooting episode, writings and videos of the killers get passed around on the internet. Television specials show and reshow the footage. Books are written. Experts are hired. Rinse and repeat.
Last year, I wrote that terrorism works because it takes advantages of psychological inefficiencies in our brains: we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to threatening events and we always overestimate how likely it is for a random event to happen to us. School shootings transfix us by leveraging the exact same inefficiencies in our minds. And once they’ve dominated this mindspace, we can’t seem to shake them out of it.
Yet, for some reason, while we seem to imagine potential terrorists everywhere — in airport lines, at stadium gates, in subway cars — we never see the school shooters coming. We’re always caught by surprise.
Possibly the least insightful piece of writing I've read on the subject, and I've read most of the idiotic one liners in this thread. I don't understand how anyone can write something so deficient in every single way, and still be sure everyone else is stupid.
first you break him, split (not literally) the mind from the body, don't let him think/rationalize then work on his body, totally ignoring the mind; physically crush him. the mind will have to adjust and in turn shift its perspective. then and only then work on the mind since it'll be (more) open to a different view. uproot, confuse, paradigm shift, recovery.
(throughout his memorandum he showed an affinity for control; he seemed in total control (rationally). when you're in control you create whatever answers you want to whichever questions you come up with. they're all lies so just break him, break the control)
On May 30 2014 07:16 xM(Z wrote: first you break him, split (not literally) the mind from the body, don't let him think/rationalize then work on his body, totally ignoring the mind; physically crush him. the mind will have to adjust and in turn shift its perspective. then and only then work on the mind since it'll be (more) open to a different view. uproot, confuse, paradigm shift, recovery.
(throughout his memorandum he showed an affinity for control; he seemed in total control (rationally). when you're in control you create whatever answers you want to whichever questions you come up with. they're all lies so just break him, break the control)
I've read a bunch of stuff about this guy so far and I think the one thing I find funniest is that the wave of fighting about what needs to be worked on here to prevent this from happening.
I have seen feminists argue vehemently it was his feeling of entitlement to women's bodies that caused this when it was his frustration and feeling of alienation from females, quite the opposite, that he writes most about. They argue he was a misogynist that felt as though women rejected him because they were dumb, when in reality he was a misanthrope who hated himself, attractive women (for him blond and blue eyed white girls), and men who were able to "seduce" those attractive women.
I have seen gun control advocate argue that it was guns that did this, when in reality the guy purchased his gun legally, and killed with knives, a gun, and a car. They argue he was a loose cannon who should have never been able to buy a gun, when he absolutely had no reason to be denied a gun before this whole spree given anything short of prophetic visions by the seller. Furthermore he did more damage with knives and cars than guns it seems.
I have seen mental health advocates argue that he should have been seen well before hand and this could have been prevented, when in reality he had seen many mental health professionals for years and I don't know how much more could have been done of this front.
There are finally those that blame this on his white privilege, and I'm not even going to bother with that because this guy is mixed race.
So now my question is, where is this argument about him going. What are we actually going to do about it, and what should actually be done other than pray this never happens again until it inevitably does soon after.
On May 30 2014 08:18 docvoc wrote: So now my question is, where is this argument about him going. What are we actually going to do about it, and what should actually be done other than pray this never happens again until it inevitably does soon after.
Make a psychiatric assessment the requirement for anyone under the age of 25 who wants to own firearms, outlaw guns completely for any person that has a history of mental illness that could impair his capability of handling guns.
On May 30 2014 08:18 docvoc wrote: I've read a bunch of stuff about this guy so far and I think the one thing I find funniest is that the wave of fighting about what needs to be worked on here to prevent this from happening.
I have seen feminists argue vehemently it was his feeling of entitlement to women's bodies that caused this when it was his frustration and feeling of alienation from females, quite the opposite, that he writes most about. They argue he was a misogynist that felt as though women rejected him because they were dumb, when in reality he was a misanthrope who hated himself, attractive women (for him blond and blue eyed white girls), and men who were able to "seduce" those attractive women.
I have seen gun control advocate argue that it was guns that did this, when in reality the guy purchased his gun legally, and killed with knives, a gun, and a car. They argue he was a loose cannon who should have never been able to buy a gun, when he absolutely had no reason to be denied a gun before this whole spree given anything short of prophetic visions by the seller. Furthermore he did more damage with knives and cars than guns it seems.
I have seen mental health advocates argue that he should have been seen well before hand and this could have been prevented, when in reality he had seen many mental health professionals for years and I don't know how much more could have been done of this front.
There are finally those that blame this on his white privilege, and I'm not even going to bother with that because this guy is mixed race.
So now my question is, where is this argument about him going. What are we actually going to do about it, and what should actually be done other than pray this never happens again until it inevitably does soon after.
The only solution is for people to shut up about these spree killings. The WHOLE point is turn the media into a circus focused on the killer, and whatever grievances the killer had. All this arguing over it is just inspiring the next psycho.
Notice how spree killings are slowly becoming more common. The first one to get major media coverage inspired the next, and so on. And as time goes on, psychos have more and more examples to be inspired by.
I think the only thing we could do to prevent more events like this is to try to de-emphasize sex. Maybe if it wasn't seen as some kind of rite of passage, or something to strive for to achieve social standing, it wouldn't have meant so much to Elliot. Maybe if we do this we'll prevent any more from following the same descent into madness.
Of course, that won't stop people from finding some other twisted world-view to kill over, but its a start.
On May 30 2014 08:18 docvoc wrote: So now my question is, where is this argument about him going. What are we actually going to do about it, and what should actually be done other than pray this never happens again until it inevitably does soon after.
Make a psychiatric assessment the requirement for anyone under the age of 25 who wants to own firearms, outlaw guns completely for any person that has a history of mental illness that could impair his capability of handling guns.
He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
This past weekend, a student named Elliot Rodger from Santa Barbara City College killed six and injured 13, the latest in a long series of school shootings that are all but becoming a normal part of American tradition. As usual, the killer left a cache of material behind to explain his intentions and milk as much publicity for his personal grievances as possible. This time, the focus was on women, and how they wouldn’t have sex with him.
Like they always do, the media have descended to explain away the madness. And like a Rorschach Test, each outlet had its own pet cause primed and ready to be read into the situation.
Gun control advocates used the event as an opportunity to campaign for stricter gun control, despite the fact that Rodger bought his guns legally and easily passed the background checks. Mental health advocates used it as an opportunity to urge better mental health care, despite the fact that Rodger had had a small army of therapists and social workers working with him for practically his entire life. Feminists used it as an opportunity to promote awareness for violence against women, despite the fact that Rodger killed indiscriminately and the majority of the victims turned out to be men. Social justice advocates used it as an opportunity to rail against white male entitlement, despite the fact that Rodger was mixed race and a significant number of school shooters have also been minorities (Two examples: Seung-Hui Cho and Kimveer Gill).
All of these issues are legitimate and deserve conversation. But they are not the singular cause. They’re not the point.
Because of my book, I’m connected within the men’s dating advice industry. And many of them are scrambling right now. Elliot Rodger was a member of a number of sites, email lists and Facebook groups. And all of these authors and dating coaches — some of them legitimately decent men, others shady marketers — are all frantically trying to cover their tracks as best as possible.
But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.
Every school shooting incident comes in the same dreary package: an angry, politically-charged rant, shrink-wrapped around a core of mental illness and neglect. These shooters leave behind journals, videos, diagrams, manifestos and treatises. They broadcast their plans and intentions to their friends and family. They email news outlets minutes before they start firing. They write down their plans and make checklists so that others may follow in their footsteps. They go on angry rants against materialism, hedonism, the government, mass media, women, and sometimes even the people close to them.
And each time, as a culture, we work ourselves into a frenzy debating the angry exterior message, while ignoring the interior life and context of each killer. We miss the point entirely.
Mass Shootings as Non-Political Terrorism
For a country that is so single-mindedly obsessed with terrorism, it’s jaw-dropping that almost nobody recognizes that school shooters use the exact same strategies to disseminate fear and their twisted agendas throughout society. Terrorists use violence and mass media coverage to promote political or religious beliefs; school shooters use violence and mass media coverage to promote their personal grievances and glorification.
When viewed in this way, our responses to the school shooters looks juvenile in comparison. Can you imagine arguing over whether misogyny made Osama Bin Laden plan September 11th? Or whether video games caused Dhokhar Tsarnaev to plant bombs at the Boston Marathon? Or whether heavy music inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City?
You would be laughed at.
And in fact, when anyone goes as far as to suggest that Islam causes terrorism, they are immediately and rightfully scolded for it. Yet when it comes to school shootings, these types of discussions are not only tolerated, but engaged in willfully.
It’s not that we should respond to school shootings the same way we respond to terrorist attacks. It’s that we already do. We just don’t realize it.
When Elliot’s creepy YouTube videos went public, declaring vengeance upon every college girl that wouldn’t sleep with him, every woman who had ever heard a guy mutter something similar suddenly felt a chill run up her spine. And that chill caused the video to be posted and reposted, sending more chills up more women’s spines until it had spread across the country. My guess is that’s exactly what Elliot would have wanted.
And we’ve seen this viral dissemination over and over again. After every school shooting episode, writings and videos of the killers get passed around on the internet. Television specials show and reshow the footage. Books are written. Experts are hired. Rinse and repeat.
Last year, I wrote that terrorism works because it takes advantages of psychological inefficiencies in our brains: we pay a disproportionate amount of attention to threatening events and we always overestimate how likely it is for a random event to happen to us. School shootings transfix us by leveraging the exact same inefficiencies in our minds. And once they’ve dominated this mindspace, we can’t seem to shake them out of it.
Yet, for some reason, while we seem to imagine potential terrorists everywhere — in airport lines, at stadium gates, in subway cars — we never see the school shooters coming. We’re always caught by surprise.
A very interesting philosophy.
That's the best article I've seen on Elliot Rodgers mass killing. It looks at the problem internally instead of the end result.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
Same with guns. They can shoot empty soda cans and cardboard boxes, or they can shoot people. But neither knives or guns do anything by themselves. Knives don't stab people, people do. Likewise, guns dont shoot people, people do.
Its not the Bill of Needs, its the Bill of Rights. Need has nothing to do with it.
How many people really NEED free speech? None, look at North Korea, they aren't all dropping dead without it. How many people NEED an attorney or a trial? None, imagine how much quicker we could deal with criminals without all these slow trials.
How many people need alcohol? That kills way more people than guns. Yet you don't hear cries for trying prohibition again every time a drunk driver kills someone.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them. You cut your food with knives, which is pretty important, you go on a drink with your friends which is a very pleasurable experience, but what do 90 out of 100 Americans do with their guns? Nothing except exercising the right of owning them.
edit: every law that prohibits something is a pragmatic weighting between the interests of the public and the individual. Banning alcohol or other drugs significantly impairs the individual freedom, making guns way more restrictive does what? Stopping you from shooting empty soda cans? The self defense argument is a really bad one because firstly you have a police for that and secondly, many studies have shown that guns in self-defense are often used illegally and escalate the situation (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/)
On May 30 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote: The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them. You cut your food with knives, which is pretty important, you go on a drink with your friends which is a very pleasurable experience, but what do 90 out of 100 Americans do with their guns? Nothing except exercising the right of owning them.
We shoot them at cardboard, paper, tin cans, and we hunt. Those are all very pleasurable experiences.
I think its funny that you're implying those 75,000 deaths due to alcohol are acceptable losses as long as you can keep your booze, but 30,000 deaths is way too many to allow guns.
I didn't bring up self-defense, but since you went there. The police are minutes away, assuming you can even get to a phone. Further, they have no actual responsibility to protect you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
In case you don't want to read it, I'll sum it up. In an apartment building, a woman was being beaten and raped on the second floor. Two women on the third floor called 911, and the responding officer just looked around outside and left. The assailants then went upstairs and proceeded to rape the women who had called 911. The Supreme Court found that the police had no responsibility to help any individual, therefore their failure to act was acceptable.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
See you are still missing the point.
I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
See you are still missing the point.
I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons?
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either.
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Nobody goes out into the street with 3 Big Macs and a 20 pack of Camel and murders a bunch of unsuspecting innocent people with them. If you kill yourself with Big Macs or cigs that's your own fucking choice. That's why.
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
See you are still missing the point.
I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons?
So if then everyone had a large stockpile of sarin in their basement you would be totally ok with that?
Well, alright then, I think I'm done here. Not gonna waste any more breath on this.
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either.
I think you could have guessed I wasn't literally talking only to you. But the important distinction is fast food is only dangerous to the person eating it. Alcohol is also banned in places where its use endangers other people.(like driving).
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Nobody goes out into the street with 3 Big Macs and a 20 pack of Camel and murders a bunch of unsuspecting innocent people with them. If you kill yourself with Big Macs or cigs that's your own fucking choice. That's why.
If we're banning things that kill a bunch of innocent people, we need to ban fertilizer too. Timothy McVeigh killed 82 using it.
Cigarettes do also kill innocent people; second hand smoke.
If we're not counting self-inflicted deaths, those gun death numbers I posted earlier go down to 11,000.
On May 30 2014 10:22 Millitron wrote: Really, nukes are way too expensive for anyone to even get one. Look how much trouble whole countries have getting them. Even if they were legal, no one would have them. The whole "Do you want to legalize nukes?" thing is a pretty terrible strawman.
First of all it was a hypothetical example, it doesn't depend on how expensive the weapon is.
But alright, then just replace "nuclear weapon" with "sarin" and you still have the exact same problem in your argument.
Not really. Governments are banned from chemical and biological weapons. People should be allowed to use the same weapons the Government is.
If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
See you are still missing the point.
I'm asking why should any weapon be illegal, what in your mind is a sufficient enough reason to ban a weapon (where do you draw the line), not even just relating to the government or people but in general?
In general, if I was king of the UN or whatever and had the final say, I'd allow any weapon to any government or person. What I really care about is not having a double-standard. I don't care so much about where you draw the line, so long as you use the same line for everyone. Governments are no more responsible than individuals. They may even be less responsible, as the consequences of the use of these weapons rarely affect the people issuing the orders. How many generals in WW1 felt bad about using chemical weapons?
So if then everyone had a large stockpile of sarin in their basement you would be totally ok with that?
Well, alright then, I think I'm done here. Not gonna waste any more breath on this.
I'd prefer if they didn't. But I'd also prefer if the government didn't have it either. I cannot see any reason why the government should not have the right to it though. So while I'd prefer if they didn't have it, that in and of itself is not reason to ban it.
On May 30 2014 10:42 Millitron wrote: If you can't trust the populace with a given weapon, what makes you think you can trust the Government?
It seems like your whole argumentation boils down to a mix of "Murica, fuck yeah!" and "how am I going to defend myself against the Redcoats?!"
Again, I haven't said anything about defense without being prompted.
But your whole argument seems to boil down to trying to save lives. If saving lives is what you want why not restrict the things that actually kill the most people? i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, and Mcdonalds? None of those things are rights.
Have you ever killed another person with a chicken McNugget?
No. And I've never killed anyone with a gun either.
I think you could have guessed I wasn't literally talking only to you. But the important distinction is fast food is only dangerous to the person eating it. Alcohol is also banned in places where its use endangers other people.(like driving).
On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote: And yet drunk driving still kills people.
Theft is illegal. Still people are stealing stuff. Should we make it legal again? Also usual amounts of fertilizer don't kill anyone. If you're going to buy a hundred pounds of fertilizer and you're not a farmer chances are you're going to get interesting visitors. And yes second hand smoke kills a lot of people. That's exactly why many countries and many states in the US are putting stricter smoking regulations in place.
On May 30 2014 11:02 Millitron wrote: And yet drunk driving still kills people.
Theft is illegal. Still people are stealing stuff. Should we make it legal again? Also usual amounts of fertilizer don't kill anyone. If you're going to buy a hundred pounds of fertilizer and you're not a farmer chances are you're going to get interesting visitors. And yes second hand smoke kills a lot of people. That's exactly why many countries and many states in the US are putting stricter smoking regulations in place.
But none of those regulations are outright bans or serious restrictions. Its just "Don't smoke indoors" and more expensive cigarettes.
Yet there are calls for banning certain kinds of guns entirely. There are calls for magazine size limits. There are calls for bans on certain attachments on guns.
You don't see any outcry for banning menthols or vodka. You don't see any outcry for banning big packs of cigarettes or kegs of booze. You don't see any outcry for banning tobacco pipes or shot glasses.
I'd prefer if they didn't. But I'd also prefer if the government didn't have it either.
You know it's time to stop when you are actively contradicting yourself without even realizing it. Just stop dude.
I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural rights" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducible. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural rights.
I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be.
And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it?
And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws.
I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be.
And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it?
And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
I would say empathy. The same reason we came up with the concept of the law in the first place. Laws as such don't exist, they are a human invention.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
I would say empathy. The same reason we came up with the concept of the law in the first place. Laws as such don't exist, they are a human invention.
So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws.
I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be.
And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it?
And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be.
Well I personally believe in subjective morality. No objective morality, no natural laws or anything like that.
So the best way for us to come to an agreement in regards to morality would be cross-examination, discussion and debating the issues. Of course we all need some common ground (call it assumptions) to get anywhere, for example we would have to broadly agree that the well-being of people is important and that we don't want people to suffer for no reason.
The difference is that my account for morality doesn't attempt to hide it's own subjectivity and can be modified and improved, but by asserting that morality is objective, that there is a natural law, etc.. you have effectively removed yourself from that discussion.
edit: And of course the irony is that this is exactly what we are doing right now, discussing rights and morality subjectively and yet you still seem to think it's objective? If it is so objective, how come we all have a different outlook on morality and rights and how is it you think that yours is accurately reflecting reality and mine is not? Please explain, I would honestly like to know that.
On May 30 2014 12:18 Millitron wrote: So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract.
I don't feel bad for europeans because they don't have a right to own guns and I don't feel good for americans because they do. So given your own argument you would have to conclude that the right to bear arms is not a natural right.... lol?
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
Sure it does. Basically it means that it's all subjective (i.e., dependent on the sovereign nation). The restriction upon and the extent of the right is all fine-tuning by man, not nature. It's a human created right wholly dependent upon the lens of the men sitting around the table. An inference made about a "natural right" is that it is some objective god-given right that is inherent to every living soul on the planet regardless of time, place, circumstance, etc...
And don't get me wrong, rights can be important, but they're never natural. It would be good to distinguish between the two. To believe in a natural right is pretty much the secular version of an act of faith.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
Exactly this. I used to be swayed by the "cars / alcohol kill more people than guns" argument, but the important thing to remember is the scale of harm involved. Are more people wounded / killed per incident of gun violence than are wounded / killed per incident of automobile violence? I don't know the statistics for this, and it's possible that they aren't, but it is still clear that the potential for mass casualties in incidents involving guns is much higher than in incidents involving automobiles.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
On May 30 2014 12:13 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:01 PassionFruit wrote:
On May 30 2014 11:38 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 11:26 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Exactly. The problem with this whole idea of "natural laws" is that they are neither demonstrable nor deducable. They are only what we think them to be, which exposes the biggest problem of the concept of natural laws.
I mean from a purely philosophical perspective the "is-ought gap" alone is enough to refute the idea of a natural law or at the very least make it meaningless. Because even if we could know what the natural law is (by observing nature, or some other means) we still couldn't possibly know what it ought to be.
And it's somewhat dangerous territory, because suppose for the sake of argument that the natural law as such was detrimental to human society, would we still accept it?
And is owning a gun a natural right, if so how come europeans do not have that right and seemingly disagree? Which begs the question, who is right, how can we know?
Define detrimental. By your own reasoning we can't know what ought to be. Ergo we also can't know what ought not to be.
Well I personally believe in subjective morality. No objective morality, no natural laws or anything like that.
So the best way for us to come to an agreement in regards to morality would be cross-examination, discussion and debating the issues. Of course we all need some common ground (call it assumptions) to get anywhere, for example we would have to broadly agree that the well-being of people is important and that we don't want people to suffer for no reason.
The difference is that my account for morality doesn't attempt to hide it's own subjectivity and can be modified and improved, but by asserting that morality is objective, that there is a natural law, etc.. you have effectively removed yourself from that discussion.
On May 30 2014 12:18 Millitron wrote: So if you feel bad that people elsewhere don't have rights, clearly their fundamental somehow. They aren't just some facet of the social contract. If they were, you'd accept that they simply have a different social contract.
I don't feel bad for europeans because they don't have a right to own guns and I don't feel good for americans because they do. So given your own argument you would have to conclude that the right to bear arms is not a natural right.... lol?
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
On May 30 2014 11:13 Millitron wrote: I'm not though. My preference has nothing to do with rights. While I would prefer if governments didn't have it, that is not reason alone to ban them from it. Rights exist whether I like them or not. I can prefer if they are not exercised, but I cannot take them away.
You are probably the single most dishonest person I have come across on the internet in ages. I asked you, YOU specifically, on what you think and that is exactly the question you were responding to. It was a hypothetical question that you even answered hypothetically.
And you don't even seem to understand what a right is and I find it almost ironic that the government (which you seem to be opposing) is the only reason you even have your rights in the first place. You are almost like a walking oxymoron.
If the government didn't exist you wouldn't have any rights, absolutely none. Has that ever even occured to you?
Governments don't give rights. They protect them (hopefully). Human rights are also called Natural rights for a reason. You have them by your very nature.
If you're talking about how I said if I was in charge I'd let governments have sarin or whatever, that's because I believe sovereign governments have the right to decide how they equip their military. While I might prefer if they did not have sarin, that does not outweigh their sovereignty, in my mind. Even if I'm king of the world or what have you.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
oh the days when I was an idealist. The belief that rights are natural is a myth. It's only as natural as the sovereign nation deems it to be.
And if you want to play the founding father's game, did you know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were never intended to be a restriction on the individual States? If we had it the old way, each state could outright ban guns and free speech if they wished. Things only changed after the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Only as recent as the early 1900's.
But I do recognize that times change. And so does our perspective of what is a "natural right." Which makes it all just a fiction from the beginning.
Allowing states to ban guns or free speech does not change the arguments made in favor of these things in say the Federalist papers or the Constitutional Convention.
If rights are only given by governments, not by nature, why do we care how North Korea or Syria treats its people? Clearly those governments aren't giving any rights.
Sure it does. Basically it means that it's all subjective (i.e., dependent on the sovereign nation). The restriction upon and the extent of the right is all fine-tuning by man, not nature. It's a human created right wholly dependent upon the lens of the men sitting around the table. An inference made about a "natural right" is that it is some objective god-given right that is inherent to every living soul on the planet regardless of time, place, circumstance, etc...
And don't get me wrong, rights can be important, but they're never natural. It would be good to distinguish between the two. To believe in a natural right is pretty much the secular version of an act of faith.
The arguments are still valid though. Just because the document based on them did not explicitly force the states to respect them does not disprove said arguments. Its just a failure of the negotiations used to create the Constitution.
On May 30 2014 09:09 Millitron wrote: He saw numerous psychologists, none of whom thought he was a danger to anyone.
Yeah , apparently they were wrong. That's why I'm saying mentally ill people shouldn't be handling guns.
And if they were wrong this time, how is making it illegal for the mentally ill to own guns going to stop any more events like this? You just admitted they missed him, they could easily miss again.
I think the whole call for gun control every time there's a shooting is kinda shortsighted. You don't hear any outcries for banning knives or cars, even though he used both in his murders. In fact, he stabbed just as many people as he shot!
Comparing guns to everyday items like knifes or cars is flawed. Guns have only one purpose, shoot stuff. Statistically speaking 90 out of 100 Americans own a gun (although practically many own multiple guns, so the real number is obviously lower) but how many of these people really need guns?
And sure people fall through the net, or club someone to death with a baseball bat or whatever, but just because you can't fix the whole problem doesn't mean fixing a part of it would be wrong.
Knives only have one purpose. To cut stuff. Be it human flesh or food.
guns dont shoot people, people do. .
I'm not a gun-control advocate but I find this argument to be one of, if not the worst argument pro-gun activists could possibly make.
After all, nuclear weapons don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. Bombs don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people.
I mean if you went downright philosophical on this, you would eventually come to the conclusion that NOTHING actually kills people, because a hand can't kill people on it's own, a brain can't kill people on it's own, almost always it's a combination of different things working together that results in people getting killed.
But what is absolutely the case is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives, baseballs bats, etc... In the same sense that nuclear weapons are more effective at killing people than guns and I hope we can all accept that it is exactly for that reason why they should be illegal.
So the question really is how effective can a tool be at killing people before we say "that's too effective, we shouldn't allow people to use such a device."
If its sheer number of deaths you're worried about, alcohol is over twice as bad as guns.
No that has nothing to do with what I said. I mean given your own logic here you would have to conclude that nuclear weapons should be legal, given that there are 0 deaths per year in the US that are attributable to a nuclear weapon being used.
Exactly this. I used to be swayed by the "cars / alcohol kill more people than guns" argument, but the important thing to remember is the scale of harm involved. Are more people wounded / killed per incident of gun violence than are wounded / killed per incident of automobile violence? I don't know the statistics for this, and it's possible that they aren't, but it is still clear that the potential for mass casualties in incidents involving guns is much higher than in incidents involving automobiles.
They are also much rarer. Mass killings are extraordinarily rare, regardless of what the media would have you believe. More people drown in their pools.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law. (and in fact, when you pay close attention, you can already tell that it is, because the law is changed literally all the time based on how our society feels about certain topics. Call it societal empathy)
And of course there is the obvious absurdity in your argument in that the founding fathers were somehow able to conceive of the right to bear arms as a natural right, but they were such moral midgets that it didn't seem painfully obvious to them that slavery was immoral and that black people just like white people should have a natural right to be free and not slaves.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Many of them DID see slavery as abhorrent. You can see that in the ending of the slave trade. They couldn't outright get rid of slavery all at once because that would be political suicide. The Constitution never would've been ratified. They needed to take baby-steps. Better to affirm at least some of the rights while you continue to work towards the others rather than lose all of them by arguing over this one issue. And simply by affirming the idea of natural rights, they helped to end slavery. Surely many abolitionists were inspired by the ideals in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote: The arguments are still valid though. Just because the document based on them did not explicitly force the states to respect them does not disprove said arguments. Its just a failure of the negotiations used to create the Constitution.
lol dunno if you're just being stubborn now or just looking to troll me.
Any philosophical argument about rights inevitably becomes subjective once you dissect it down to its basic premises.
But I anticipate you'll strongly disagree.
And with that, I guess our discussion comes to an end.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
And just gonna point out here that during world war two japanese americans had practically ALL their rights taken away from them by the government (including the right to bear arms)... so these rights must have certainly seemed very natural to them, given that all of these rights were taken away from them on a whim.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods. The Taliban in Afghanistan, the insurgents in Iraq, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam all fared pretty well with little more than small arms and bombs they made themselves. The Viet Cong and the insurgents in Iraq won, and the Taliban are still going at it. A big, conventional army isn't very effective at ending a guerrilla resistance.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
If I break into your house and steal your TV, you still own the TV. Just because I've taken it away doesn't mean it's not yours.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
I mean it would certainly work if we assumed all people to be perfectly moral... yeah then everyone owning a nuclear weapon or having a large stock of sarin in their basement wouldn't be a problem, but the moment you admit that there are reasons why we cannot allow for people to have that right.... it all goes to shit.
And more importantly, if we decide to change any given law (as we do all the time), does that imply that the law that was replaced wasn't an accurate reflection of the natural law? Does that mean it now is? Or is it possible that even though we may think that our current law is accurately reflecting natural law it's not reflecting natural law at all? Can you bridge that gap somehow?
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people. The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law. If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people. The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law. If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
"The right to bear arm" is a concept much needed in our society but however there should be laws about responsible gun usage. The law should state that if should be purely be used to protect your own lives and the ones of the others in time of trouble.
To analyse if someone is legible to bear firearms, there need to be a carefully designed ethnic quiz that one have to pass in order to gain such right.
Also if you know that someone is out there have the tendency to kill in an offensive manner, it is your job to talk to that person and help the person to sort out what ever demons he have in his life. In this case, Elliot was ignored by his families even though they knew that he have some mental issues (proven by the fact that the parents provided psychology care) but the person to converse to in time of distress shouldn't be a hire professional but by the nurture of your relatives and friends. It is extremely difficult to emotional connect with someone who is simply there to be paid to listen to you. This is not to say that all psychiatrist are not needed, they are. However, a close individual should always be the first one to do w/e in his/her power to prevent any disasters (before getting a professional involved) since if you simply send him to a an essentially "paid friend", the trouble individual will sense even more neglect and emotional pain.
In this regard, the society needs to offer more lessons to help their child to cope with life instead of brushing the problem away. In the case of Elliot, his father was primarily occupied with his artwork but it was known that his mother and stepmother had free time of their own. So why didn't they attempt to connect with him? That's the question we should be asking.
If your daughter or son end up doing drugs, having intercourses with individual of bad traits, conducting any ballistic act; it is totally your fault because of your neglect, abuse, and bad parenting skills. And if your excuse is that "because I don't have any time, I was busy with my work.", well then that's your inability to plan things out. There are countless of examples where even though parents are busy with their career, they'll take their kids out on the job and connect with them so they can learn life skills. You can't have everything, you gotta make some priority and if you know that you will be putting your needs before your child(ren), don't cease to have unproductive sex. Its bad for you to be distracted by family matters and your child(ren) will grow up without directions.
Another way to ameliorate better child cares is that one parent should stay at home to supervise the action of the child and intervene when needed. Traditional parental approach have always produced more disciplined, hard working individuals. And actually talk to your kid about his dreams and endeavors. If the idea isn't danger inducing, then do your best to support him. This is why many teens rebel against their parent, its the constant put down of ideas that makes teens to perform in such methods.
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods.
This is absurd. Of course a fighter jet can't kick in your door, but a tank can just blow it away. Of course a tank cannot search the woods for partisans, but infrared cameras and satellites could.
On May 30 2014 12:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:51 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:49 Millitron wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:43 SlixSC wrote:
On May 30 2014 12:36 Millitron wrote:
First of all, I'm a hardcore Kantian. I'm all about the objective morality, so we're never going to be able to agree on anything.
If morality is subjective you have no basis for any legal system, or even really History. You cannot fairly judge any actions, past or present, because the actors may simply have not had your subjective morality.
Just because you cannot feel bad that Europeans do not have the right to bear arms does not disprove that it is not a natural right. Just that you're not empathetic enough But you do feel bad about some rights being infringed, meaning the idea of Natural rights IS fundamental.
And how do you know that the right to bear arms is a natural right? How did you come to that conclusion, what was the methodology you used to get there? Merely asserting that it is really isn't gonna cut it I'm afraid. I know this might be inconvenient to you but you are gonna have to give us some evidence or at the very least a rational justification for it.
And if morality is subjective our basis for morality or any legal system would be empathy. Empathy is ulitmately the basis of most of our moral actions, so I don't see why it couldn't be the basis for our morality or law.
Empathy is a learned trait. Or rather what triggers empathy is learned. For instance, in Arabic nations, it used to be perfectly acceptable to keep a harem. It still IS acceptable in some places. They do not empathize with the women held in these harems.
The right to bear arms is a natural right because it protects the other natural rights. Sure, our governments are supposed to as well, but they've been known to be negligent of their duties. The right to bear arms is a last resort defense of your other natural rights. Natural rights would, in practice, mean nothing if they relied solely on governments for their insurance.
Really? Do you really think that if the government wanted to take away your rights, backed up by the most powerful army in the world, nuclear weapons, tanks, fighter jets, etc.. you having a hand gun would make ANY difference?
You can't seriously believe that.
Just because the Japanse-Americans' rights were infringed doesn't mean they weren't natural. That's a failure of the government.
I've asked you this question two or three times now, but I'll ask it again. How do you know they are natural, what is your evidence for that? What is the methodology you used to come to that conclusion? You cannot possibly convince anyone that what you are saying is true if you deny other people the possibility to cross-examine whatever evidence you have.
Natural rights come from logic. They are freedoms which do not contradict the freedoms of another. Like right to own property, free speech, right to privacy. Basically any action that does not infringe on the freedoms of any other human being. They are a denial of double-standards.
So, in your world, do I have a natural right to own sarin, a nuclear bomb, a tank, a fighter jet.. etc? I just fail to see how your definition gives us any way to decide that. I mean to merely own a nuclear bomb isn't a problem right, it's only a problem when you use it.
But don't you see how problematic that is for you? Actions don't take place in a vacuum, if we want to evaluate the morality of anything we need to take into account all the relevant factors. We can't just look at a single action or moral dilemma and go "ok, ignoring all other factors, it's perfectly fine for me to own a nuclear weapon or have a large stock of sarin in my basement."
Really, it already IS legal to own tanks and fighter jets. The only laws against tanks would be local ones about not destroying their roads, and the only laws against jets would be noise ordinances. And those laws are perfectly fine. The roads are owned by the state, it's their call on what can and can't use them. Similarly, constant sonic booms would damage windows and possibly even deafen some people.
Ok, where I live owning a tank or a fighter jet is not legal, I wasn't aware that it is legal in the US. But that's beside the point anyway.
edit: I've just done some research and while it is true that you can own a tank or fighter jet in the US, the firing system must be deactivated. But that's not really what I was talking about, I was talking about fully operational military vehicles, pretty obvious actually in the context of this conversation.
The other items are all strawmen that in their acquisition would require breaking some other law.
That's not what we are debating though. We are talking about the natural law being the basis for our law. If it contradicts our law then I'm afraid that's tough shit, because the only thing that would entail (if it were objective) is that our current law is wrong.
If you're acquiring nukes or poison gas or whatever, there is likely evidence that you're plotting to use it for nefarious acts. And plotting to commit an immoral act is itself immoral. If you are not plotting anything, and can store the sarin or nuke or whatever without it being a hazard to the community constituting negligence, there's nothing wrong with having it.
Irrelevant.. if we knew the intentions of all people then I certainly agree that it would be piss easy for us to enforce the law. But that is sooo missing the point.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
You're saying that US citizens need weapons and have a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the US as a free state? Now? In 2014? The redcoats are gone, what exactly is this "well regulated militia" ensuring today and how come everyone (not just those in militias) need access to weapons? What kind of security does this ensure? Against who does it protect?
Also you seem highly misinformed. The Supreme Court has made multiple rulings precisely because the original wording isn't considered clear enough.
Quote Alito (McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010) "We have previously held that the most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the states. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."
However, in the same case (quote Scalia): "Like most rights, the right secure by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
This is why for example mentally ill people or felons have seperate regulations. Or that's why certain states can ban certain guns if they so choose which technically is against the Second Amendment as well coming from your interpretation.
Hell, the Supreme Court has been debating this since pretty much the inception of the Constitution. (1876) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", in (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Two quotes straight up from the first paragraph of the wiki article on the subject.
There is no "universal right to bear arms" in the US. It is not part of the constitution that citizens have some right to bear any firearm they so desire. Don't pretend there is by taking a quote from the constitution out of context.
On May 30 2014 11:31 r.Evo wrote: Militron, why do you think it should be legal to own things like a Tec-9 (banned in CA, NY, NJ and MD "among other states") or an AR-15 (heavily regulated in MA, NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT)?
I'm not talking about hunting rifles or pistols here, I mean specifically weapons like the above that are designed for nothing else but killing people.
You CAN hunt with them. No reason you can't.
It should be legal to own these weapons because the right to bear arms is protected in the constitution. And as is argued in the Federalist Papers, is a basic human right. Don't give me the whole "They meant muskets." nonsense. Back in the Revolutionary War, individuals owned warships and cannon. They owned the same weapons as the government.
So... you think laws should never change based on changes in society and advances in technology?
The UK for example (where the American version of the "right to bear arms" came from in the first place) has changed their gun policy miles since 1689, why is it so outrageous that America might change a policy that is more than 200 years old? A policy that came about right after a violent revolution.
Hell, the "right to bear arms" is so old and unclearly worded that at this point people are arguing over what exactly it means and implies and there are quite some different interpretations that are considered viable. That's usually when legislators step in to clarify, according to what is deemed necessary in todays age.
They should change when the conditions they were formed under no longer apply. The arguments made in favor of the right to bear arms in the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention still apply. Whether the UK has changed its laws is irrelevant.
It's also not very unclearly worded if you ask me. Or the Supreme Court.
You're saying that US citizens need weapons and have a well regulated militia to ensure the security of the US as a free state? Now? In 2014? The redcoats are gone, what exactly is this "well regulated militia" ensuring today and how come everyone (not just those in militias) need access to weapons? What kind of security does this ensure? Against who does it protect?
Also you seem highly misinformed. The Supreme Court has made multiple rulings precisely because the original wording isn't considered clear enough.
Quote Alito (McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010) "We have previously held that the most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the states. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."
However, in the same case (quote Scalia): "Like most rights, the right secure by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
This is why for example mentally ill people or felons have seperate regulations. Or that's why certain states can ban certain guns if they so choose which technically is against the Second Amendment as well coming from your interpretation.
Hell, the Supreme Court has been debating this since pretty much the inception of the Constitution. (1876) "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence", in (1939) the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Two quotes straight up from the first paragraph of the wiki article on the subject.
There is no "universal right to bear arms" in the US. It is not part of the constitution that citizens have some right to bear any firearm they so desire. Don't pretend there is by taking a quote from the constitution out of context.
Remember, to him it's a natural right. If it's not in the Constitution, couldn't be negotiated in. Contrary interpretation by the Supreme Court, politics or just misunderstanding. Practical results mean nothing, because the underlying premise that it is a natural right trumps all.
Arguing against it is as futile as arguing against a creationist. It's pretty much akin to a faith based belief system.
On May 30 2014 07:16 xM(Z wrote: first you break him, split (not literally) the mind from the body, don't let him think/rationalize then work on his body, totally ignoring the mind; physically crush him. the mind will have to adjust and in turn shift its perspective. then and only then work on the mind since it'll be (more) open to a different view. uproot, confuse, paradigm shift, recovery.
(throughout his memorandum he showed an affinity for control; he seemed in total control (rationally). when you're in control you create whatever answers you want to whichever questions you come up with. they're all lies so just break him, break the control)
???
you can fix people like you can fix robots/machines; tighten or loosen up a screw and voila. he wasn't fixed. he was allowed to become a murderer, he wasn't born one.
Hello guys, I don't post much here anymore but the subject of PUA and the "science" of dating being brought up caught my eye.
For about 2 years now, I've been an avid reader/participant in much of the manosphere, which PUA is understood to be a part of. I'm not going to give too many details about my tale, both for brevity's sake and because much of it isn't relevant. I do want to convey some part of my experience there though, in hopes it might lend a little depth to this discussion.
Let me say at the outset that I'm more or less done with my participation in the manosphere, partly because I've learned all I'm going to need from it, and partly because of the atrocity committed by Elliot Rodger, whom I do believe to have been negatively influenced by some of the more fucked-up theories about women that are floating around there. While the community mostly denies culpability for Rodger's actions, dismissing him as a lone psychopath, and a member of "PUA hate" besides, a few more reasonable voices have asked if this might not be a time for introspection, and getting rid of the more toxic/negative elements in the community. And I fully agree with them.
I think the PUA community and its various branches emerged out of laudable motives -- simply a bunch of dudes trying to help other dudes build confidence and achieve some success with sex/dating. Many of the guys who enter into PUA are damaged from a bad relationship(s), are insecure, have low self-esteem, are socially stunted, are overweight, have never had a girlfriend and feel resentful... etc. Other members naturally want these newbs to overcome their hurdles, self-improve and, above all, gain confidence so they can eventually go out and approach women.
There is a right way to help someone achieve this. You explain to them that wanting sex/intimacy with a woman isn't bad or wrong, but their approach is. Perhaps they're trying to covertly NiceGuy their way into a relationship and failing. Perhaps they're just awkward in social situations and need a lot more experience talking and connecting with people. Perhaps they just had shit luck. Yes, sometimes you will run into a woman who is simply a bad egg... a gold digger, unfaithful, an entitled princess, or what have you. Doesn't mean all women are like that, just that you need to keep putting yourself out and not settle for less. Somewhere out there is a quality woman who's right for you!
Unfortunately, this is not the way many veteran PUAs use. Either for expediency's sake, or because they've bought into their own BS, they will give these frustrated men a message that is much easier to digest, that produces confidence (of a sort) much more rapidly than the above, but is ultimately detrimental in a lot of ways. Instead of saying "you have to accept that your approach was fucked up, and that you are mostly to blame for this. Now what you have to do is keep trying hard, take risks by being open and honest and putting your emotions on the line, and just accept that part of dating (approx 50%) is always going to be sorta beyond your control" ... they will say something like: "Listen bro, women ain't nothing but sluts and bitches. They're all like that, so you might as well stop fawning over them and start figuring out ways to get what you want out of them, because they'll always be doing the same to you."
What this message does is instill contempt. The biggest problem among new members always was and will be fear. Fear of rejection, fear of failure, fear of shame, etc. It all translates into being afraid of women, especially of being direct with them and risking rejection. But it is actually insanely difficult to be afraid of someone you have contempt for, who you see as lesser than you. If they reject you, so what? They were nothing but a slut/bitch/whore anyway. On to the next.
Weirdly enough, when you mix in fear and contempt of women in equal parts, the outcome is a man whose actions often resemble those of a man who respects, but does not fear women (which I'm sure is what most women actually want). It's a sort of shortcut to acting like a halfway decent, desirable man. The "science" used by PUA, if anything, is just a jumble of papers these PUA-vets find after the fact to justify their initial stance: contempt for women.
What happens, though, when a man continues to have no success with women despite absorbing all these PUA concepts? Well, contempt can also serve as a salve for one's own wounded ego; after all, if women are all stupid and shitty, that makes failing with them a sort of mark of pride. Even so, in a state of chronic isolation, one's feelings of loneliness and frustration are bound to deepen, requiring even greater doses of contempt for women to cover up... it's a feedback loop of sorts, and if one does not eventually realize how stupid it is to blame women for each and every one of one's own shortcomings, the results can be disastrous.
In any case, it's easy for a less analytical-minded sort, or simply someone who *wants* to believe, to look at this process and think, "huh! This dark psychology stuff gets RESULTS! The shittier I am to women the more they like me! Forget all that politically correct mumbo jumbo, I know what these bitches REALLY want." Add some confirmation bias from this newly-minted asshole attracting exactly the kind of women who are attracted to assholes, and you witnessed the creation of a die-hard believer in PUA principles. Others will grow out of their initial contempt for women after realizing all of what I just laid out. Maybe they stick around, maybe not. Right now, I'm in the 'not' category.
Hope this gives a little insight. Also sorry I posted this late, I see ya'll are mostly talking about gun control now...
@Zahir, you might want to kill that post, PUA discussion has been banned for a few days. Interesting thoughts though . Honestly it's getting to the stage where gun control discussion needs to be as well, it's moved way beyond the specific relevance of gun control to Elliot's case, which would be the restriction of handguns specifically for those who have displayed signs that they may be of danger to the community.
I think expecting widespread gun control in the states is expecting too much. As much as I think gun control is an actively helpful step to preventing this kind of shit, there's a cultural barrier in the States that makes it ineffective that can't just simply be glossed over.
Stepping back to the main line of conversation, there have been a couple of notes in the last pages about Roger's insanity and, particularly this quote from the otherwise rather nice article
But this “witch hunt” we go through every time a school shooting happens is a total ruse. Elliot Rodger didn’t become a killer because he was a misogynist; he became a misogynist because he was a killer. Just like Eric Harris didn’t become a killer because he loved violent video games; he loved violent video games because he was a killer. Just like Adam Lanza didn’t become a killer because he loved guns; he loved guns because he was a killer.
I agree and empathise with the sentiment expressed here- the desire to blame everything and sundry for these kind of events, and the politicization in the mass media is very sad. That said, what is actually said here is beyond retarded. There's no justification given of what a 'killer' is, as if it's some inherent quality like being Caucasian or having downs syndrome. Sure, these people didn't become killers because they loved violent games or guns or hated women, but it's equally, in fact even more stupid, to say they loved/hated those things because they had some kind of inherent trait (at least without trying to explain what that trait was).
This speaks to the worst parts of the genetic-determinist crowd. In lay terms, people who think your genes determine who you'll be in a binary fashion. I really suggest reading the wiki articles on gene expression and non-mendelian inheritance.
To summarise the ideas contained within 1) many genes do not operate in accordance with mendelian laws (you know that classic dominant-recessive thing they taught you in school) 2) More importantly, just because you are born with a gene that predisposes you to a certain thing does not mean you will have that thing, or even actually have the thing that causes you to be predisposed either. Sometimes genes just don't turn on.
On top of that, it's a good idea to understand the concept of predisposition thoroughly. Predisposition does not mean that you are going to suffer from the effect, it just means you are more susceptible (for whatever reason) than the average bear.
So a gene that makes you predisposed to cancer of a certain type almost certainly works by altering your body in some way that means it does something more often than other people's bodies, and that thing has a higher risk of generating cancerous cells. The gene's expression causes the risk, not the gene itself. And gene expression can be controlled, or compensated for.
So saying Elliot was 'a natural killer' or 'born a lunatic' is disingenuous, because it suggests that no matter what happened in his life, he would have ended up like this. Even the (expert) proponents of the nature case in NvN don't agree with this, they simply argue that genetic predispositions play more important roles in our lives than we commonly admit.
I feel it's important to figure out what triggered his pathological spiral and what factors caused normal treatment to fail. I realise that it's probably a number of factors, but since we have access to a fairly detailed history of his life, plus his own self-reflections, we have a chance of doing so.
To those who, again, dismiss his own words as useless because he was nuts, I say that they are even more valuable because of this. They allow us to see where his perceptions separated from reality, which in turn helps find the places where his spiral of pathological thought began, how his pathology arose and so on.
That he was eventually an extreme narcissist is beyond doubt, but what caused that extreme narcisssim to develop? Again, I don't agree with comments like 'spoiled rich kid durrrr', because there are plenty of spoiled rich kids who aren't collossal narcissists. What do you have to add to spoiling a child to result in a case like this? I don't think the answer is simple.
On May 30 2014 17:22 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I feel it's important to figure out what triggered his pathological spiral and what factors caused normal treatment to fail. I realise that it's probably a number of factors, but since we have access to a fairly detailed history of his life, plus his own self-reflections, we have a chance of doing so.
To those who, again, dismiss his own words as useless because he was nuts, I say that they are even more valuable because of this. They allow us to see where his perceptions separated from reality, which in turn helps find the places where his spiral of pathological thought began, how his pathology arose and so on.
That he was eventually an extreme narcissist is beyond doubt, but what caused that extreme narcisssim to develop? Again, I don't agree with comments like 'spoiled rich kid durrrr', because there are plenty of spoiled rich kids who aren't collossal narcissists. What do you have to add to spoiling a child to result in a case like this? I don't think the answer is simple.
I actually think that the "What triggered this spiral? / What factors caused a case like this?" questions are so complex that trying to answer them is almost pointless. Simply based on numbers given enough human beings, enough possible influences and enough ways to do damage like this to others there will always be cases like this. We can't prevent them or screen for them because those things would infer so deeply with individual freedom that it quite honestly isn't worth it.
There are however two thing that can be done. First of all there has to be some basic awareness about others that is getting less and less developed for a vast majority of people. Whether it's a guy like this going insane without having anyone close enough to talk to about it or about an old person rotting away in their apartment because there wasn't anyone close enough to notice their death I believe they're both symptoms of the same disease. In the end solid social structures have a huge influence that can prevent a LOT of things but we tend to sacrifice those for superficial relationships more often than we should.
Two, and this actually makes talking about gun control a lot more important than talking about pickup or violent videogames, we need to look at the tools we make readily available to the general public. One can argue about home defense and the second amendment (as I explained earlier it does not grant a universal right to bear arms according to the US Supreme Court) as much as one want but in the end it's a lot harder to kill lots of people with a German AR-15 than it is with an American AR-15. It's harder to kill lots of people with a knive than with bombs just like it's harder to kill lots of people with conventional bombs than with nuclear weapons. This isn't about preventing any crime, it's about making crimes harder to commit with more potential roadblocks in the way and therefor in the end about making crimes that will be committed anyway less dangerous to the people involved.
Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.
Link:
Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.
Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.
If you go to 23:50 you can see Elliot in the back ground. The crazy part is if you see them shaking Stallone's hand, Elliot reaches out to shake his hand but the new wife is the target jumps in and Elliot is ignored and he awkwardly puts his hand down. Jumping with excitement to meet a perceived superstar and then being shunned by your own mother.
I always forget how fake people can be these days haha. Poor Elliot was definitly not prepared to live in a world like that. Those guys are acting even when they are not actually filming stuff.
And they say he was a huge narcissist LOL. It is just hilarious. Actors everywhere, money everywhere, fame and bullshit everywhere, and the narcissist is the aspie kid who goes insane haha. Yea sureeeeeeeeeee.
Hello, I don't know if this video has already been linked; This is a 2 hour analysis by Stefan Molyneux (owner and animator of a popular philosophy show called Freedomain Radio) He goes pretty deep in the relationship beteween Elliot and women.
Here is briefly a take on his analysis :
Elliot feels like he never connected with women and always got rejected by them. The root of this comes from the fact that he got rejected and failed to connect with his mom and his step mom. The image of women that Elliot forged in his head is based on the lack of love from his mother. This is a pretty deep freudian slip; He saw his mother(s) as being pretty cold bitches. Elliot was always about those pretty cold bitches. He only talks about pretty blonde girls, and fail to have an interest on other women (which is pretty ironic to have high beauty standard for others, and then bitch about those beauty standards when they become applied to you) He only fantasized about the sofisticated ladies and ignore the rest. This kid didn't have a solid bond with any woman, not even his mother. And when his mother(s) represent 99% of his interaction with women, it becomes more possible to understand how he managed to have such a twisted and negative image of women.
They are also much rarer. Mass killings are extraordinarily rare, regardless of what the media would have you believe. More people drown in their pools.
Yes, but the potential for mass death caused by pools is quite low.
Those things cannot be used against an angry populace effectively. If they nuke the people, they both turn any survivors into opposition, and kill the very people they're trying to control. Fighter jets can't kick in your door for a warrentless search. Tanks cant find partisans hiding in the woods. The Taliban in Afghanistan, the insurgents in Iraq, and the Viet Cong in Vietnam all fared pretty well with little more than small arms and bombs they made themselves. The Viet Cong and the insurgents in Iraq won, and the Taliban are still going at it. A big, conventional army isn't very effective at ending a guerrilla resistance.
The statement that a big, conventional army is ineffective at ending a guerrilla resistance is wrong. Since 1945, governments have won as often, if not more than, rebels have in civil wars. There are so many factors involved in civil wars that you can't just boil it down to rebels having access to small arms being the key to rebel victory.
And when his mother(s) represent 99% of his interaction with women, it becomes more possible to understand how he managed to have such a twisted and negative image of women.
Guess you can always chalk it up to bad parenting, huh? (Not being sarcastic here, i do believe that parenting - or lack thereof - always has a role in these cases.)
One thing for sure, he did achieve attracting a huge amount of attention. Don't know if it's for the better or worse, but he probably changed some people's mind a bit.
On May 30 2014 22:31 Cynry wrote: One thing for sure, he did achieve attracting a huge amount of attention. Don't know if it's for the better or worse, but he probably changed some people's mind a bit.
Hmmm maybe Hollywood will make a movie about him (with non-narcissistic actors and directors and no advertising campaign obviously).
On May 30 2014 08:18 docvoc wrote: So now my question is, where is this argument about him going. What are we actually going to do about it, and what should actually be done other than pray this never happens again until it inevitably does soon after.
Make a psychiatric assessment the requirement for anyone under the age of 25 who wants to own firearms, outlaw guns completely for any person that has a history of mental illness that could impair his capability of handling guns.
In a perfect world of diagnosis, we would brain-scan people buying guns and restrict folks with mass-killer tendencies. But in the real world, the kind of law you propose would have the primary effect of discouraging folks from getting psychiatric care.
On May 30 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote: The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them.
This is nonsense. Target shooting is an awful lot of fun.
--- But the primary points are that we need to, as a society (1) work toward a better system of restricting dangerous people from owning guns, (2) work toward a better system of helping the mentally ill, (3) work toward a societal understanding that women are not mere sex objects, but are subjects with equal agency to men.
We can go in circles forever about which of these 3 is the primary cause of this particular disaster, but everybody does understand that all three are good goals to work toward. There is no need to boil this down to a single cause; real life problems don't usually have simple, single, easily circumscribed causes.
Honestly why is it so hard for Americans to part with their guns that they don't even use, in the name of public safety? How many more school shootings will it take before pro-gun activists realize that hey, maybe being able to publicly buy a gun has a factor in how many people get shot? But oh wait, guns dont kill people, people kill people, if they take away our 2nd amendment rights it's only a short step to becoming a complete dictatorship, murica fuck yeah.
On May 31 2014 01:18 writer22816 wrote: Honestly why is it so hard for Americans to part with their guns that they don't even use, in the name of public safety? How many more school shootings will it take before pro-gun activists realize that hey, maybe being able to publicly buy a gun has a factor in how many people get shot? But oh wait, guns dont kill people, people kill people, if they take away our 2nd amendment rights it's only a short step to becoming a complete dictatorship, murica fuck yeah.
Different countries have different models, based on what they regard as the primary goal of government. The U.S. has historically seen the overriding objective as protection from tyranny. Everything in the constitution is aimed at this in one way or another. (The historical context should be remembered: no-one had ever tried an experiment in republican self-rule as large and all-encompassing as the American experiment. At the time, and for a long time after, whether republican self-rule of a large state was even a sustainable system was a very live question; the French Revolution and the 1848 uprisings were taken as evidence of the violence inherent in republicanism. It was a popular opinion at the time of the American Civil War that the war represented the violent self-destruction that was the natural result of such a system of government; this is what the Gettysburg Address is all about.)
Europe, on the other hand, has adopted a more classically "socialist" (no derogatory sense intended) system, where the overriding objective of government is the protection of the welfare of the citizen. Having a different philosophy of government means having different results. And there's nothing wrong with having both systems existing in the world. Having both around decreases the chance that democracy fails catastrophically at some point in the distant future, as the systems are different enough that things that might cause one to fail would be rebuffed in another. To fail to plan systems of government with the long view in mind is to fail to plan in any significant way at all.
Idk why everybody says he was a super narcissist, imo talking about narcissism is just hypocrisy. Everybody loves himself and wants to be above others and that's a completely natural feeling, it's just the extension of our own extinct of survival and domination at work. The difference is simply made when someone is egoist or not, which is showing or not your love for yourself to others, your narcissism be it in words or actions. So that means that someone extremely egoist will for example hurt others just to better his position. And yes the guy was an extreme egoist and that's not rly surprising considering his family participated in a French reality show called the housewives which btw is one the most retarded shit you could ever see in a lifetime. Any parents who were not superficial retards wouldn't participate in a show like that as they have to show their real tardness or act like if they were. In the show everybody acts egoistically and usually has already done aesthetic surgery or wants to.
If his whole family favored stupid shit like fame, beauty, outside image, etc... Things that he didn't have then he must have been at least a bit excluded in his family and feel excluded in the outside world (one guy even pointed out that his father told in the show that he only had one son). With that I can totally see him go into depression and think of himself as weak and uncool and inferior because if he wasn't feeling like that he wouldn't have had to tell everyone that he deserved more in every video of his. (That's speculation)
On May 30 2014 22:20 Diks wrote: Hello, I don't know if this video has already been linked; This is a 2 hour analysis by Stefan Molyneux (owner and animator of a popular philosophy show called Freedomain Radio) He goes pretty deep in the relationship beteween Elliot and women.
Here is briefly a take on his analysis :
Elliot feels like he never connected with women and always got rejected by them. The root of this comes from the fact that he got rejected and failed to connect with his mom and his step mom. The image of women that Elliot forged in his head is based on the lack of love from his mother. This is a pretty deep freudian slip; He saw his mother(s) as being pretty cold bitches. Elliot was always about those pretty cold bitches. He only talks about pretty blonde girls, and fail to have an interest on other women (which is pretty ironic to have high beauty standard for others, and then bitch about those beauty standards when they become applied to you) He only fantasized about the sofisticated ladies and ignore the rest. This kid didn't have a solid bond with any woman, not even his mother. And when his mother(s) represent 99% of his interaction with women, it becomes more possible to understand how he managed to have such a twisted and negative image of women.
Sounds a bit too Freudian for me. Not aiming this specifically at the video, but guys, if you want to be an armchair psychologist, at least please read beyond an introductory Psychology textbook.
On May 31 2014 01:18 writer22816 wrote: Honestly why is it so hard for Americans to part with their guns that they don't even use, in the name of public safety? How many more school shootings will it take before pro-gun activists realize that hey, maybe being able to publicly buy a gun has a factor in how many people get shot? But oh wait, guns dont kill people, people kill people, if they take away our 2nd amendment rights it's only a short step to becoming a complete dictatorship, murica fuck yeah.
Do they not teach Chinese History in China?
Also, we use them all the time. And no, not just for shooting people.
On May 31 2014 01:18 writer22816 wrote: Honestly why is it so hard for Americans to part with their guns that they don't even use, in the name of public safety? How many more school shootings will it take before pro-gun activists realize that hey, maybe being able to publicly buy a gun has a factor in how many people get shot? But oh wait, guns dont kill people, people kill people, if they take away our 2nd amendment rights it's only a short step to becoming a complete dictatorship, murica fuck yeah.
Do they not teach Chinese History in China?
Also, we use them all the time. And no, not just for shooting people.
But the US isn't China. If I'd be living in the US I would be a little more worried about the 20 different intelligence and security agencies and the patriot act than just screaming "ermahgerd, don't take my guns!" the whole day.
Social inequality and a insanely large security apparatus hurt the 'American idea' a million times more than gun laws ever could. All that guns really are is a antiquated symbol for freedom which people seem to cling to instead of trying to get rid of things that actually hurt peoples individual freedom.
On May 31 2014 01:34 Acertos wrote: Idk why everybody says he was a super narcissist, imo talking about narcissism is just hypocrisy. Everybody loves himself and wants to be above others and that's a completely natural feeling, it's just the extension of our own extinct of survival and domination at work. The difference is simply made when someone is egoist or not, which is showing or not your love for yourself to others, your narcissism be it in words or actions. So that means that someone extremely egoist will for example hurt others just to better his position. And yes the guy was an extreme egoist and that's not rly surprising considering his family participated in a French reality show called the housewives which btw is one the most retarded shit you could ever see in a lifetime. Any parents who were not superficial retards wouldn't participate in a show like that as they have to show their real tardness or act like if they were. In the show everybody acts egoistically and usually has already done aesthetic surgery or wants to.
If his whole family favored stupid shit like fame, beauty, outside image, etc... Things that he didn't have then he must have been at least a bit excluded in his family and feel excluded in the outside world (one guy even pointed out that his father told in the show that he only had one son). With that I can totally see him go into depression and think of himself as weak and uncool and inferior because if he wasn't feeling like that he wouldn't have had to tell everyone that he deserved more in every video of his. (That's speculation)
Everyone is a psychologist, or a mental health advocate or a gun advocate (both for and against). Totally agree with you that he wasn't taught values grounded in reality either.
On May 31 2014 01:34 Acertos wrote: Idk why everybody says he was a super narcissist, imo talking about narcissism is just hypocrisy. Everybody loves himself and wants to be above others and that's a completely natural feeling, it's just the extension of our own extinct of survival and domination at work. The difference is simply made when someone is egoist or not, which is showing or not your love for yourself to others, your narcissism be it in words or actions. So that means that someone extremely egoist will for example hurt others just to better his position. And yes the guy was an extreme egoist and that's not rly surprising considering his family participated in a French reality show called the housewives which btw is one the most retarded shit you could ever see in a lifetime. Any parents who were not superficial retards wouldn't participate in a show like that as they have to show their real tardness or act like if they were. In the show everybody acts egoistically and usually has already done aesthetic surgery or wants to.
If his whole family favored stupid shit like fame, beauty, outside image, etc... Things that he didn't have then he must have been at least a bit excluded in his family and feel excluded in the outside world (one guy even pointed out that his father told in the show that he only had one son). With that I can totally see him go into depression and think of himself as weak and uncool and inferior because if he wasn't feeling like that he wouldn't have had to tell everyone that he deserved more in every video of his. (That's speculation)
You're arguing semantics so it might be a cultural/language thing, but the dictionary disagrees with you.
nar·cis·sism/ˈnɑrsəˌsɪzɛm/ noun 1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. Synonyms: self-centeredness, smugness, egocentrism. 2. Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissism
You don't think he was "inordinately fascinated" with himself? Narcissism isn't "loving yourself and wanting to be above others," as you put it.
Go to minute 8:05 on the video o29 posted. The guy says that Elliot Rodgers targeted victims on a campus that prohibited carrying firearms, and therefore argues that banning firearms would not have solved the issue... Are you fucking kidding me? How can you be this stupid? Banning firearms means prohibiting it from being sold to people like Rodger Peter ANYWHERE in the nation. Of course only prohibiting firearms in certain areas won't stop shooting sprees from occurring there if you can still legally purchase firearms. Rodger Peter bought his firearm legally by the way.
On May 31 2014 01:34 Acertos wrote: Idk why everybody says he was a super narcissist, imo talking about narcissism is just hypocrisy. Everybody loves himself and wants to be above others and that's a completely natural feeling, it's just the extension of our own extinct of survival and domination at work. The difference is simply made when someone is egoist or not, which is showing or not your love for yourself to others, your narcissism be it in words or actions. So that means that someone extremely egoist will for example hurt others just to better his position. And yes the guy was an extreme egoist and that's not rly surprising considering his family participated in a French reality show called the housewives which btw is one the most retarded shit you could ever see in a lifetime. Any parents who were not superficial retards wouldn't participate in a show like that as they have to show their real tardness or act like if they were. In the show everybody acts egoistically and usually has already done aesthetic surgery or wants to.
If his whole family favored stupid shit like fame, beauty, outside image, etc... Things that he didn't have then he must have been at least a bit excluded in his family and feel excluded in the outside world (one guy even pointed out that his father told in the show that he only had one son). With that I can totally see him go into depression and think of himself as weak and uncool and inferior because if he wasn't feeling like that he wouldn't have had to tell everyone that he deserved more in every video of his. (That's speculation)
He gives up hope little by little and cements his own victimhood as the years go by in his revealing manifesto. All these offhand comments about some reality show are way off base. Fast forward to his retrospective on the pre-teen and teenage years (they're grouped by age). The beginning shows foundations of distrust, but its full-blown victim mentality and despondency from un-refuted internalized answers he came up with to life's questions. "He must've felt this" and "been at least a bit excluded" are so out of place with such an easily accessible first-person source. He retreats from real life to WoW, early on decides he will never succeed with girls and is never persuaded otherwise, and lays out the rest of his sad biography.
Please, grab the source and skim to find evidence-based conclusions from his own mind and not a rush to conclusions from one's own mind and second-hand reporting. It's like saying what Churchill must've thought and felt and refusing the read the autobiography (And some other posters in this analogy feeling a great amount of satisfaction having figured out Churchill so well from second-hand reporting, and fresh and ready.) Pre-teen can be started ~page 35 and teenage years are in full swing by ~page 45.
The boys in my grade talked about sex a lot. Some of them even told me that they had sex with their girlfriends. This was the most devastating and traumatizing thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Boys having sex at my age of Fourteen? I couldn’t fathom it. How is it that they were able to have such intimate and pleasurable experiences with girls while I could only fantasize about it? I frequently started asking myself. This was an all boys school... How in the hell were those boys even able to meet girls to have sex with? I wondered. I hoped they were lying. I hoped against all hope. Hearing that really shook me to the core. Words cannot describe how much hatred and envy I felt for those boys. That hatred would only fester the more I suffer from my sexual starvation. I was too scared to tell anyone about it, and I hid it well... for a time
I was completely and utterly alone. No one knew me or extended a hand to help me. I was an innocent, scared little boy trapped in a jungle full of malicious predators, and I was shown no mercy. Some boys randomly pushed me against the lockers as they walked past me in the hall. One boy who was tall and had blonde hair called me a “loser”, right in front of his girlfriends. Yes, he had girls with him. Pretty girls. And they didn’t seem to mind that he was such an evil bastard. In fact, I bet they liked him for it. This is how girls are, and I was starting to realize it. This was what truly opened my eyes to how brutal the world is. The most meanest and depraved of men come out on top, and women flock to these men. Their evil acts are rewarded by women; while the good, decent men are laughed at. It is sick, twisted, and wrong in every way. I hated the girls even more than the bullies because of this. The sheer cruelty of the world around me was so intense that I will never recover from the mental scars. Any experience I ever had before never traumatized me as much as this.
This was the perfect set up for a World of Warcraft addict. After school, every day, I fully indulged myself in my addiction to WoW. My only social interaction was with my online friends and with James, who would occasionally come over to my house to play WoW with me.
On May 30 2014 20:55 Xiphos wrote: Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.
Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.
Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.
If you go to 23:50 you can see Elliot in the back ground. The crazy part is if you see them shaking Stallone's hand, Elliot reaches out to shake his hand but the new wife is the target jumps in and Elliot is ignored and he awkwardly puts his hand down. Jumping with excitement to meet a perceived superstar and then being shunned by your own mother.
In other words, complete family dysfunction.
Holy shit... that's one way to fuck a kid over, actively pretend he doesn't exist.
And he and Soumaya had a very frosty relationship, his manifesto says it as well.
Something has been bothering me about the linguistics of this whole thing. I think it has to do with the word 'misogyny'. Misogyny in a dictionary sense means the hatred of women, but it has become as of late a sort of synecdoche for every facet of the society-wide discrimination against females, most of which has less to do with 'hatred' of women and more to do with a severe lack of respect. When we talk about Elliott Smith being radically misogynistic what we mean is that he quite literally despised women, that he wanted to see them put in concentration camps or whatever the fuck. But then when we say that 'misogyny caused these murders' these two senses of the word become conflated, as if the murders were caused by sexist jokes or the pay gap or something. Its like if there was someone who was irrationally afraid of gay people, like pee-your-pants-and-run-out-of-the-room afraid of them, but he didnt despise them or think gays were in any way unequal to himself, and this caused him to do something, and we say 'homophobia caused him to do this', and then everyone thinks that what he did was caused by prejudice/discriminatory attitudes against gays because of the double nature of the word.
On May 30 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote: The difference is that guns serve absolutely no purpose for the majority of people owning them.
This is nonsense. Target shooting is an awful lot of fun.
Well, it's not just that. There's no dancing around the fact that there's some really shitty areas in the US where people are right to fear for their safety. Hell, I've generally felt less safe in various places in the US than I ever did travelling around Europe or China -- even when I went to some of the "dodgier" areas.
On May 31 2014 01:34 Acertos wrote: Idk why everybody says he was a super narcissist, imo talking about narcissism is just hypocrisy. Everybody loves himself and wants to be above others and that's a completely natural feeling, it's just the extension of our own extinct of survival and domination at work. The difference is simply made when someone is egoist or not, which is showing or not your love for yourself to others, your narcissism be it in words or actions. So that means that someone extremely egoist will for example hurt others just to better his position. And yes the guy was an extreme egoist and that's not rly surprising considering his family participated in a French reality show called the housewives which btw is one the most retarded shit you could ever see in a lifetime. Any parents who were not superficial retards wouldn't participate in a show like that as they have to show their real tardness or act like if they were. In the show everybody acts egoistically and usually has already done aesthetic surgery or wants to.
If his whole family favored stupid shit like fame, beauty, outside image, etc... Things that he didn't have then he must have been at least a bit excluded in his family and feel excluded in the outside world (one guy even pointed out that his father told in the show that he only had one son). With that I can totally see him go into depression and think of himself as weak and uncool and inferior because if he wasn't feeling like that he wouldn't have had to tell everyone that he deserved more in every video of his. (That's speculation)
They guy called himself fabulous and magnificent and all sorts of other dumb shit. When he went out into the real world and every interaction with society proved his misguided opinion wrong he went ahead, opened up the big book of excuses as to why the world would not recognize his undeniable excellence.
See, no one got to this little bastard early enough and talked and/or slapped some sense into him. He would have realized hey, girls do not like me BECAUSE I am an unhappy, anti-social, spoiled brat who never understood the concept of WORKING FOR something. No wonder the kid went crazy if he was sitting there in the corner brooding hoping girls would be all over him. He had no idea he was being that fucking weirdo, never integrated into society, never grew up.
The kid was ass backwards, and was a giant coward, and it was first and foremost a complete failure on the part of his parents and family to curtail this before he became a lost cause. But I guess they were almost as dumb as he was thinking their money could pay someone to fix all this kids emotional issues. No one is going to care about your child like you should. And if you are a parent and your child is not at the top of your list, whatever happens to that child is on you.
Because no one should be having children unless theyre willing to make them the number one priority. This should be about parenting, not about gun rights. The rest of us should not have our freedoms hinged upon because people dont instill the correct values on their children. God forbid the next time the child drowns at the beach because no one taught their kid how to swim and gives him carte blanche to ride the waves how long before we ban the beach? Or fuck it, ban people from coming outside period because parents dont know how to handle their kids? Stop being shortsighted people.
I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts who crave alpha males', 'don't trust men because they will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies,still a virgin) this quote terrifies me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart. Is it not surprising that his failures pissed him off in the same way a rather bad loss would make a SC2 player mad?
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school or helping him socialize better and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him in terms of actually stopping his bullying.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
On Valentine Day, if you only give them gift on that particular day, does it mean that you only like that person for one day? Idk about you but if a person that I know deserves it, it doesn't matter on what day I perform my act of kindness. Beside all those holidays are designed by the marketing company for you to actually spend big buck to generate more revenue. Don't live under social stigma because others are forcing you, actually have a logical brain.
And on the relationship, yeah you are pretty much agreeing with me that one shouldn't invest too heavily emotionally so there is really isn't any argument between us at this point.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
It's just tradition/marketing. In Japan for example, girls give guys chocolates on Valentine's Day and guys give girls chocolates on another holiday.
On May 26 2014 22:48 Quotidian wrote: The people who want to make this into a gender wars thing are completely clueless.
He was probably schizophrenic, paranoid, psychopathic, had some form of autism and certainly had several other social disorders. And he was extremely lonely. He didn't kill anybody because of misogyny or "The Patriarchy." He killed because he couldn't connect, he felt angry and vindictive.
He's the classical loner male killer.. almost all of them have some kind of paranoid delusion coupled with a superiority complex. If he didn't blame women for withholding affection from him (the whole "entitlement to sex thing is overstated anyway - he clearly wanted a girlfriend more than simply sex) - he'd blame something else for his disconnectedness. The result would probably have been the same.
100% agreed.
This isn't anything other than a mental health issue. It's not a feminist issue; his life was relatively fucked up and he took his problems out on women, as well as never learning what he was doing wrong at any point in his life. It's not a gun-control issue; his first three victims were stabbed, and he probably would've made plans to blow Isla Vista to the moon if he didn't have access to guns. It's an issue of what made him tick, what made him snap, and how we can look at mentality to make sure this kind of stuff happens far less frequently than it does now.
Explanation and motives are 2 separate things.
Why did he killed all these people ? He was mentally unstable. That's the explanation, why he acted upon his motives. What are his motives ? Misogyny, (Wrong) Sense of entitlement. Those are the motives and the self-justification he build in is head.
That's not the explanation. He's mentally unstable, now what factors take his instability and put him out onto the street shooting and stabbing the people? What gave him his sense of entitlement? The misogynistic traits are pretty explainable by a read of his manifesto. But it's a matter of why his thought process was the way it was.
Which goes back to my original point: There are tons of misogynists out there. There are tons of people with an overinflated sense of entitlement. Both groups might be somewhat of a nuisance, but there's almost never a case where one of them goes on a killing spree. So why this time and not any other time? And I believe the answer to that question has nothing to do with gender issues or gun control.
I will try to answer that question.
Here's how people make choices (generally speaking):
1. Question One - When someone makes a choice, is there a cost to it?
2. Question Two - If there is a cost to the choice, do they think it is worth the cost to make that choice?
3. Question Three - Why are they making that choice?
With this person, obviously he felt that the cost (his life or jail time) was worth the choice he made (going on a killing spree).
Now the question is, what benefit do they have with making that choice?
What we know is that the person was hurt.
What we know is the person had certain views or others and of life.
Personally, I've felt this way before.
I felt like when someone has wronged me, I felt like I may do something that I may regret.
Of course, I wait a while and then take a look at the costs. First, is doing this what I want to be? For me, I want to be a nice guy so it usually ends there. If I struggle a bit, I ask myself if I can avoid the hurt. Like if it is only mental (like if someone said something really horrible to me, can I ignore it or walk it off?) then usually I stop right here and end it.
But if it really hurts or if someone did something physical to me or is a continuous threat, then I may struggle a little.
Is there a non-violent way to deal with this issue?
From there, I think of the costs. If I do something regrettable that may cause jail time, then that puts me off.
In this case, I do not think the cost is worth it.
Obviously, there are legit cases of people being mentally unstable but there are also many legit cases of people knowing what they are doing, and still doing them despite knowing the costs of what they are doing.
They know the costs and they know what they want to achieve.
In this case, the person knew the cost but for him, the cost didn't seem to be anything. He didn't like his life, so the costs were not as relevant.
People can be hateful of a group or of others but if they have a good life (or if they like their life or think that it can be improved), generally they won't do anything that would jeopardize it.
Like if someone hated a group but their life was generally good and worth living, why would they do anything to jeopardize what they have?
In most places, there are penalties for murder, so to those groups, the cost (the penalty for murder) isn't worth their hate for a certain group.
However, in this case, this person's dislike for a certain group seemed to outweigh the costs (his life or jail time) for doing something to that group (murder the people in the group).
Again, we don't know if he completely knew the costs of what he wanted to do and whether what he wanted to do was worth it but it is an option.
Anyway the point is, I disagree with people saying that he was simply mental unstable.
That could be the reason. But another reason is his view on others and life was a certain way.
He hated people and also hated a certain group. He felt like he wanted to do something bad to those people and he felt like the costs (his life or jail time) was worth what he wanted to do (murder).
Overall, I'm just saying that it isn't always "the person who went on a killing spree was simply mental unstable".
Plus he even wrote blogs and even made videos and talking about what's going on his life.
Apparently, people either did not take him seriously or did not care (which may have made his view on others worse) then he did what he thought was worth it (murder) for what he thought was little cost (his life which he felt was little cost for what he wanted to do).
Of course that is if you say "mentally unstable" as in he didn't know what he was doing and that he didn't know the costs (if you mean something else, then I apologize). In this case, I am just arguing that he may have known what he was doing (including the costs of what he wanted to do).
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
Women are perfectly appropriate people to ask for constructive relationship advice, from junior high up to the present. I've gotten loads of good advice from female colleagues and friends about my personal relationships. If you're not getting good advice, the problem is with the individual you're asking, not with the fact that they're a woman.
And the Valentine's day thing just makes no sense. It is definitely marketing, as many people pointed out it's different in other cultures. Women are perfectly capable of being the provider now. It's possible that the perceived one-sidedness of Valentine's day may be rooted in sexism and those old perceptions, but iunno, I get chocolates and candy on Valentine's day from my wife....
I legitimately feel like the perceptions of people around dating can be a lot like dota. Instead of actually thinking about what it is that people are doing wrong themselves, it's just easier to be like "the real problem is with others/women/society/Peruvians....", and assign blame elsewhere because acknowledging personal deficits is difficult and painful.
And for the record, if the following attitude came out in a conversation with 99% of the women I know, it would be an attraction killer:
"With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol"
You would be permanently removed from their list of eligible suitors. And people talk (note that I'm not saying "women talk", because everyone fucking gossips, men too). So if you say sexist shit like this, it gets around. And that's gonna hurt your chances if you're trying to date someone not from the 60s.
And to the poster before him, yes, if a woman rejects you, that's it. It sucks you had to learn the hard way, but don't try to pursue her. Although it could be painful, just try to empathize with her. If a woman who you were not attracted to was sexually aggressive towards you after your clear rejection, then it would probably be annoying to you, and if it persisted for a long time, it would become creepy. No does mean no.
But there's another good piece of advice buried in that, too. The worst that someone can say if you ask them out is no. If they say no, be respectful, move on, and try someone else. Nothing else is gonna happen. It took me a long time to figure that out. I definitely was the type to get anxious about that sort of thing at first.
And if something worse does happen (i.e. you get made fun of) then the problem isn't you, it's with them, and as long as you were respectful you don't need to internalize that. Also, if you do get made fun of for asking someone out, I would question who you're targeting as suitable potential life-partners. Why would you want to be with someone who would respond like that, anyways?
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
God, what a horridly narrow-minded view point. My wife and I are currently expecting our first child, and I absolutely expect to participate in "care taking." And when she wants to return to work, then I will encourage and support that decision. I guess though, that because she will end up missing [at least] a few months of time in the office, that I'm the provider. Or maybe it's because I would clearly win in a fist fight, and we still need to define everything the same way cavemen did.
If you think one gender can't give another insight, I don't know what to tell you. Just because they don't understand every aspect doesn't mean they can't say something like "you might want to appreciate X Y and/or Z which your actions indicate you clearly don't think about" and provide food for thought. Advice is not fact - it won't always be good, it won't always be right - it is advice. Ugh, that statement is so bullheaded I would think it's straight trolling if I hadn't read so much else that was already posted here.
As far as this actual thread goes: all guns, PUA, and gender defining discussions aside, parenting in this culture sucks. I would actually venture further and say with divorce rates, the amount of impersonal interactions the internet has fostered, etc, that "family life" in this culture sucks...but it can start at a much simpler definition of parenting. It's beyond tragic that the lack of anyone who seems to care about a person leads to shit like this.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
Yo bro its 2014, just in case you haven't checked in awhile. One has to be the provider, the other the caretaker?? You're a comedian.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
Women are perfectly appropriate people to ask for constructive relationship advice, from junior high up to the present. I've gotten loads of good advice from female colleagues and friends about my personal relationships. If you're not getting good advice, the problem is with the individual you're asking, not with the fact that they're a woman.
And the Valentine's day thing just makes no sense. It is definitely marketing, as many people pointed out it's different in other cultures. Women are perfectly capable of being the provider now. It's possible that the perceived one-sidedness of Valentine's day may be rooted in sexism and those old perceptions, but iunno, I get chocolates and candy on Valentine's day from my wife....
I legitimately feel like the perceptions of people around dating can be a lot like dota. Instead of actually thinking about what it is that people are doing wrong themselves, it's just easier to be like "the real problem is with others/women/society/Peruvians....", and assign blame elsewhere because acknowledging personal deficits is difficult and painful.
And for the record, if the following attitude came out in a conversation with 99% of the women I know, it would be an attraction killer:
"With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol"
You would be permanently removed from their list of eligible suitors. And people talk (note that I'm not saying "women talk", because everyone fucking gossips, men too). So if you say sexist shit like this, it gets around. And that's gonna hurt your chances if you're trying to date someone not from the 60s.
And to the poster before him, yes, if a woman rejects you, that's it. It sucks you had to learn the hard way, but don't try to pursue her. Although it could be painful, just try to empathize with her. If a woman who you were not attracted to was sexually aggressive towards you after your clear rejection, then it would probably be annoying to you, and if it persisted for a long time, it would become creepy. No does mean no.
But there's another good piece of advice buried in that, too. The worst that someone can say if you ask them out is no. If they say no, be respectful, move on, and try someone else. Nothing else is gonna happen. It took me a long time to figure that out. I definitely was the type to get anxious about that sort of thing at first.
And if something worse does happen (i.e. you get made fun of) then the problem isn't you, it's with them, and as long as you were respectful you don't need to internalize that. Also, if you do get made fun of for asking someone out, I would question who you're targeting as suitable potential life-partners. Why would you want to be with someone who would respond like that, anyways?
Calm down there, 'BallinWitStalin'. He's simply recognizing the fact that the human species evolved under such conditions where the female was dependent on a male provider during pregnancy.
Recognizing there are key psychological differences between the two sexes does not amount to sexism. Ignoring them, however, does.
On June 02 2014 07:49 Emerson_H wrote: Calm down there, 'BallinWitStalin'. He's simply recognizing the fact that the human species evolved under such conditions where the female was dependent on a male provider during pregnancy.
Recognizing there are key psychological differences between the two sexes does not amount to sexism. Ignoring them, however, does.
You use the word fact a little too easily. It could also well be that human species evolved under conditions where a pregnant woman was taken care of by the entire community.One thing I hate about guys who are into PUA stuff (not that you necessarily are, I haven't read the entire conversation) is that they seem to be eager to attribute any differences in behaviour to evolution and genes, when a huge part of how we act comes from the environment and culture. I'm not denying that there are differences between men and women, I'm just saying that people seem to be way too quick to say that they are something we're born with. Some probably are, but not necessarily nearly all.
On May 31 2014 09:22 Clbull wrote: I literally spent 40 minutes rewriting this post because I'm worried I'm going to say something ban-worthy.
I was alerted to this case after reading a Facebook post pretty much blaming 'rape culture' and the idea that men feel entitled to sex simply because of one mentally ill 22 year old virgin's behaviour. I hate the MRA and Feminist responses to Elliot Rodger's crimes. With the scaremongering coming from both groups in regards to their skewed gender stereotypes (i.e. 'women are sluts', 'men will rape you'), the only thing they've accomplished is make each gender distrust each other even more.
This quote from Rodger (page 84 of his 140 page 'autobiography') is one of the main things that fuelled this argument.
Females truly have something mentally wrong with them. Their minds are flawed, and at this point in my life I was beginning to see it. The more I explored my college town of Isla Vista, the more ridiculousness I witnessed. All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man. This is a major flaw in the very foundation of humanity. It is completely and utterly wrong, in every sense of the word. As these truths fully dawned on me, I became deeply disturbed by them. Deeply disturbed, offended, and traumatized.
As a guy in a similar situation to him (22 years old, unsuccessful with ladies, still a virgin,) this quote disgusts me.
There is one thing I will say though; society has taught us that friendliness, respect, placing somebody on a pedestal and showering them with material gifts is the key to winning a person's heart.
But back to what I think of this incident? After reading quite a bit of his autobiography to see what made him tick, I'm under the conclusion that it could have been a parenting or schooling issue. He was bullied by both boys and girls rather harshly while at school and even summer camp since the age of 12. From the sound of it, it also seemed like his family was more concerned with his MMORPG gaming habits rather than his situation at school and it seemed like teaching staff didn't help him.
When does a person deserves unconditional respect, friendliness, being placed on pedestal and free gifts anyways? If you want these things, you better be some god of a religion, my parents, a very close friends of mine that we've being through thick and thin. If you are ANYWAYS else, its all fair game.
So only give someone the appropriate amount of respect that they deserve.
Every woman I have asked for relationship advice has said the same thing. Get to know her first, become very good friends with her then see where it goes from there.
Then you build up affection for them and it becomes one big mess of oneitis because if she rejects you, it's going to hurt. Romantic stories in literature, films, television, music and whatnot seem to follow similar tropes. Boy meets girl, boy and girl become close, boy gains affection for girl, either she returns it or doesn't, then something really complicated happens but in the end they always end up together.
I'll give you an example of a lesson I learned the hard way a couple of years ago. If a girl rejects you, don't continue to pursue her. It led to me being labelled a creep at school and being picked on by other girls.
As for the 'showering with gifts' part. If that's not true, why are we pretty much expected to partake in holidays like Valentines Day if we have a girlfriend?
A man asking women for relationship advice is like a mouse asking a cat for a kiss. Your female friends don't have the empathy to understand how hard you try (even if they are misguided steps). Films on relationships are utter crap. Avoid them! They create unrealistic expectation.
With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol.
Women are perfectly appropriate people to ask for constructive relationship advice, from junior high up to the present. I've gotten loads of good advice from female colleagues and friends about my personal relationships. If you're not getting good advice, the problem is with the individual you're asking, not with the fact that they're a woman.
And the Valentine's day thing just makes no sense. It is definitely marketing, as many people pointed out it's different in other cultures. Women are perfectly capable of being the provider now. It's possible that the perceived one-sidedness of Valentine's day may be rooted in sexism and those old perceptions, but iunno, I get chocolates and candy on Valentine's day from my wife....
I legitimately feel like the perceptions of people around dating can be a lot like dota. Instead of actually thinking about what it is that people are doing wrong themselves, it's just easier to be like "the real problem is with others/women/society/Peruvians....", and assign blame elsewhere because acknowledging personal deficits is difficult and painful.
And for the record, if the following attitude came out in a conversation with 99% of the women I know, it would be an attraction killer:
"With Valentines Day, it goes back to the role of men and women since the beginning of time where men were the provider. Think about the reverse, what if it was the women always providing for the male? It just doesn't really happen. There can never be perfect equality between the sexes. Just accept that the sexes are equal but in different ways. One being the provider and the other the care taker. Unless one day men can have babies lol"
You would be permanently removed from their list of eligible suitors. And people talk (note that I'm not saying "women talk", because everyone fucking gossips, men too). So if you say sexist shit like this, it gets around. And that's gonna hurt your chances if you're trying to date someone not from the 60s.
And to the poster before him, yes, if a woman rejects you, that's it. It sucks you had to learn the hard way, but don't try to pursue her. Although it could be painful, just try to empathize with her. If a woman who you were not attracted to was sexually aggressive towards you after your clear rejection, then it would probably be annoying to you, and if it persisted for a long time, it would become creepy. No does mean no.
But there's another good piece of advice buried in that, too. The worst that someone can say if you ask them out is no. If they say no, be respectful, move on, and try someone else. Nothing else is gonna happen. It took me a long time to figure that out. I definitely was the type to get anxious about that sort of thing at first.
And if something worse does happen (i.e. you get made fun of) then the problem isn't you, it's with them, and as long as you were respectful you don't need to internalize that. Also, if you do get made fun of for asking someone out, I would question who you're targeting as suitable potential life-partners. Why would you want to be with someone who would respond like that, anyways?
Calm down there, 'BallinWitStalin'. He's simply recognizing the fact that the human species evolved under such conditions where the female was dependent on a male provider during pregnancy. .
That's actually a misconception. For the largest part of human history. Men and women lived hunter&gatherer nomadic lifestyles in groups of 40-80 people. Where women did a lot of gathering tasks while often the group took care of children. It resembled a hippie community way more than it does a traditional family, which only became the go-to model after humans settled down and started agriculture and domestication.
The 'traditional family' is largely is a product of our more recent history and far from being the single or 'most natural' social institution that humans have formed.
I know y'all are having a fascinating argument, let me interject to say I read My Twisted World, and here are some things I noticed, and some fun facts:
It is over 100,000 words, which is more than the first three individual Harry Potter books:
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - 76,944 words Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - 85,141 words Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - 107,253 words
and
My Immortal - 86,000 (approximately)
Cho Seung-Hui's manifesto was only 23 pages long, compared to the 141 pages written by Rodger.
Rodger's "Day of Retribution" wasn't nearly as successful as he hoped it would be a longshot, and also, incidentally, when he went to the sorority house and knocked on the door, they didn't answer, a final act of 'female rejection' which probably saved a ton of lives. Moral of the story: it's okay to snub people sometimes because they could be a crazed gunman.
Rodger's second WoW character was a Blood Elf. Why does everyone pick Blood Elf?
Rodger often says "This was the end of my social life" throughout the story, but continues to interact with friends and family.
Before the shooting, Rodger's favorite weapon of choice was to splash his beverage onto the person of ire. He mentions using orange juice on at least two occasions, coffee in another, and wanting to pour his soda on rowdy movie audiences that sat in front of him.
Some interesting words that appear multiple times in the story:
Magnificent, 16 times Pokemon, 20 times Lottery, 32 times Blonde, 60 times WoW, World of Warcraft, 108 times beautiful, 130 times Mother, 397 times
Rodger put great effort into elaborating on irrelevant details, such as how he wasn't a fan of the Lord of The Rings series, but he enjoyed the movies.
Rodger's favorite drinks seem to be coffee, and wine, which he posted many pictures of himself drinking, and cites over-drinking wine throughout the latter part of his story.
Peter Rodger's film Oh My God (2009) debuted very close to Roger Nygard's The Nature of Existence (2010)
Elliot Rodger tried to win the Hunger Games irl, but the odds were not ever in his favor (especially with women)
All in all, Elliot Rodger looks like a pretty handsome guy. His voice is eerily soft-spoken though. When I first heard about Elliot Rodger, it wasn't from the news. Someone referred to him as "the isla vista guy" and said he was disgusted with his video. So I watched the video for the first time not knowing that Rodger was a mass murderer, and I was still kind of creeped out and also oddly enough, slightly amused, until I looked over at the recommended videos and saw "Isla Vista shooting" and was like "OH MY GOD" (no relation to the film of the same title)
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
On June 02 2014 14:31 - special tactics - wrote: What is PUA?
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
That's easy to say, but every country has psychopaths. It's not an "American" problem so much as it is a society problem. Anyone is capable of doing very evil things, and I wonder why it surprises anyone when someone decides to go that route.
On June 02 2014 14:31 - special tactics - wrote: What is PUA?
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
That's easy to say, but every country has psychopaths. It's not an "American" problem so much as it is a society problem. Anyone is capable of doing very evil things, and I wonder why it surprises anyone when someone decides to go that route.
I think he was referring to the combination of psychological problem and mass shootings, which is actually an American problem. Going with your points, it is true that this could happen to everyone, but the mere fact that this happens only in America makes this an American problem and thus reviewing this matter must look into the nature of American first and foremost.
On June 02 2014 14:31 - special tactics - wrote: What is PUA?
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
That's easy to say, but every country has psychopaths. It's not an "American" problem so much as it is a society problem. Anyone is capable of doing very evil things, and I wonder why it surprises anyone when someone decides to go that route.
I think he was referring to the combination of psychological problem and mass shootings, which is actually an American problem. Going with your points, it is true that this could happen to everyone, but the mere fact that this happens only in America makes this an American problem and thus reviewing this matter must look into the nature of American first and foremost.
You should probably spend a few min on google before you label this as an "American" problem. Mass murders can happen anywhere. And while mass shootings are popularly associated with the US, it's doesn't exclusively occur there.
On June 02 2014 14:31 - special tactics - wrote: What is PUA?
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
That's easy to say, but every country has psychopaths. It's not an "American" problem so much as it is a society problem. Anyone is capable of doing very evil things, and I wonder why it surprises anyone when someone decides to go that route.
I think he was referring to the combination of psychological problem and mass shootings, which is actually an American problem. Going with your points, it is true that this could happen to everyone, but the mere fact that this happens only in America makes this an American problem and thus reviewing this matter must look into the nature of American first and foremost.
You should probably spend a few min on google before you label this as an "American" problem. Mass murders can happen anywhere. And while mass shootings are popularly associated with the US, it's doesn't exclusively occur there.
I posted this map before, but I'll post it again. it actually is an American problem. The number of schoolshootings in the last 10-15 years in the US is larger than the number of all other school shootings around the world combined.
I don't know why you're posting a link about "home intruders" or "hate crimes" that's not what this thread is about.
On June 02 2014 14:31 - special tactics - wrote: What is PUA?
Is amazing that America think it is difficult problem, when it is only country to happen like this problem. They should look at what is wrong with society why this happen.
That's easy to say, but every country has psychopaths. It's not an "American" problem so much as it is a society problem. Anyone is capable of doing very evil things, and I wonder why it surprises anyone when someone decides to go that route.
I think he was referring to the combination of psychological problem and mass shootings, which is actually an American problem. Going with your points, it is true that this could happen to everyone, but the mere fact that this happens only in America makes this an American problem and thus reviewing this matter must look into the nature of American first and foremost.
You should probably spend a few min on google before you label this as an "American" problem. Mass murders can happen anywhere. And while mass shootings are popularly associated with the US, it's doesn't exclusively occur there.
I posted this map before, but I'll post it again. it actually is an American problem. The number of schoolshootings in the last 10-15 years in the US is larger than the number of all other school shootings around the world combined.
I don't know why you're posting a link about "home intruders" or "hate crimes" that's not what this thread is about.
The only point I'm making here is that mass killings incidents, including one involving firearms, are not an exclusively american problem. I'm not saying they are not a problem in America, or that they they are less of a problem in America than elsewhere.
My link is about mass killing incidents, which would sadly now include the Isla Vista one, not sure why you don't think it's relevant.
On June 03 2014 01:42 MstrJinbo wrote: My link is about mass killing incidents, which would sadly now include the Isla Vista one, not sure why you don't think it's relevant.
Because we're talking about a very specific kind of "mass killing" here. This is not about ex military guys gone mad or familicides or workplace killings. It's about young adults cracking up and committing mass murder. You're trying to dilute the problem.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
That seems indeed to be the case. I could only find 4 incidents listed for China and one for Russia. Also again there's a correlation between the number of weapons per capita and the frequency of the shootings. ~90/100 in the US, ~30/100 in Europe, 8/100 Russia, 5/100 China.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
From what I can tell, data in the map comes from news reports (I presume, news reports written in English specifically). So it might be the case that incidents in non-English speaking regions are getting under reported.
I just watched the Barbara Walters interview with the father last night. Didn't even know this incident took place..... guess I need to turn on my TV more often.
This kid was obsessed with white people. He even asked his parents to take him to get his hair bleach when he was like 8 to fit in with cool kids at school. He's only interested in white girls, especially blondes. Dude would still be a raging psychopath if Beyonce threw herself on his lap. Many those couples that pissed him off in his manifesto were focused on:
> Jocks with white girls - stereotypical alpha-males like Alexander Ludwig that he's envious of > Black men with white girls - "I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves." > Asian men with white girls - "Full Asian men are disgustingly ugly." > Hispanic men with white girls - "How could an inferior Mexican guy be able to date a white blonde girl..." > Indian men with white girls - or more specifically Indian guy in a Honda Civic with a white girl. Obviously puny Honda Civic is inferior to his BMW.
I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, and the cynic in me says the whole hot blonde girlfriend thing is all about STATUS to him. White-envy is not uncommon with Asians. (excuse me, half Asians. heh). Come on, it's not like popping his cherry with Jennifer Lawrence will cure his mental illness; he would just find the next thing to rage about.
On May 30 2014 22:31 Cynry wrote: One thing for sure, he did achieve attracting a huge amount of attention. Don't know if it's for the better or worse, but he probably changed some people's mind a bit.
Yea, of course it's about attention. He wanted to kill himself for a while. Lonely, angry about being a virgin, his last hope of being a millionaire to attract blondes did not pan out. But the problem (to him) with a quiet suicide - at most his story would appear on local news about some college kid committing suicide, minor local news for one day, and that would be it. Not enough attention! Nobody cares about wimpy double kill. Ultra kill, and especially RAMPAGE!!! in big red letters is where it's at.
Not sure what autism has anything to do with this though.
He was taking psychotropic medications and refused to take them. Although I don't agree that this was what caused it. He had a very immature understanding of what attraction really is, possibly due to his isolation from social life.
On June 03 2014 01:42 MstrJinbo wrote: My link is about mass killing incidents, which would sadly now include the Isla Vista one, not sure why you don't think it's relevant.
Because we're talking about a very specific kind of "mass killing" here. This is not about ex military guys gone mad or familicides or workplace killings. It's about young adults cracking up and committing mass murder. You're trying to dilute the problem.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
That seems indeed to be the case. I could only find 4 incidents listed for China and one for Russia. Also again there's a correlation between the number of weapons per capita and the frequency of the shootings. ~90/100 in the US, ~30/100 in Europe, 8/100 Russia, 5/100 China.
Ironically, Russia had a ridiculous murder rate in the 90s, but anyone who knows anything about that dystopian decade shouldn't be surprised. Available firearms per capita is one thing, but culture is certainly another. Most of the countries with extremely high guns per capita are relatively peaceful, excluding the US, Yemen, post-2003 Iraq, and maybe another place or two in the top 20 or so. Why are European countries with so many guns so much more peaceful? Well, they aren't dominated by gang/rap related culture that glorifies crime and murder like a cool thug kind of thing to do among other very harmful influences. Also, people in those parts tend to be a lot more intelligent of the severity of violence and murder. Knowing that also tends to be a part of the culture, and in fact, is an integral part of their history.
On June 03 2014 01:42 MstrJinbo wrote: My link is about mass killing incidents, which would sadly now include the Isla Vista one, not sure why you don't think it's relevant.
Because we're talking about a very specific kind of "mass killing" here. This is not about ex military guys gone mad or familicides or workplace killings. It's about young adults cracking up and committing mass murder. You're trying to dilute the problem.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
That seems indeed to be the case. I could only find 4 incidents listed for China and one for Russia. Also again there's a correlation between the number of weapons per capita and the frequency of the shootings. ~90/100 in the US, ~30/100 in Europe, 8/100 Russia, 5/100 China.
Ironically, Russia had a ridiculous murder rate in the 90s, but anyone who knows anything about that dystopian decade shouldn't be surprised. Available firearms per capita is one thing, but culture is certainly another. Most of the countries with extremely high guns per capita are relatively peaceful, excluding the US, Yemen, post-2003 Iraq, and maybe another place or two in the top 20 or so. Why are European countries with so many guns so much more peaceful? Well, they aren't dominated by gang/rap related culture that glorifies crime and murder like a cool thug kind of thing to do among other very harmful influences. Also, people in those parts tend to be a lot more intelligent of the severity of violence and murder. Knowing that also tends to be a part of the culture, and in fact, is an integral part of their history.
Its the media, they shouldn't have blown this killing as much as they should. They should've only covered it for a little bit and then move on.
On June 30 2014 00:32 Gotlander wrote: Yeah the guy had obvious psychological problems.
Not sure what autism has anything to do with this though.
He was taking psychotropic medications and refused to take them. Although I don't agree that this was what caused it. He had a very immature understanding of what attraction really is, possibly due to his isolation from social life.
On June 03 2014 01:42 MstrJinbo wrote: My link is about mass killing incidents, which would sadly now include the Isla Vista one, not sure why you don't think it's relevant.
Because we're talking about a very specific kind of "mass killing" here. This is not about ex military guys gone mad or familicides or workplace killings. It's about young adults cracking up and committing mass murder. You're trying to dilute the problem.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
That seems indeed to be the case. I could only find 4 incidents listed for China and one for Russia. Also again there's a correlation between the number of weapons per capita and the frequency of the shootings. ~90/100 in the US, ~30/100 in Europe, 8/100 Russia, 5/100 China.
Ironically, Russia had a ridiculous murder rate in the 90s, but anyone who knows anything about that dystopian decade shouldn't be surprised. Available firearms per capita is one thing, but culture is certainly another. Most of the countries with extremely high guns per capita are relatively peaceful, excluding the US, Yemen, post-2003 Iraq, and maybe another place or two in the top 20 or so. Why are European countries with so many guns so much more peaceful? Well, they aren't dominated by gang/rap related culture that glorifies crime and murder like a cool thug kind of thing to do among other very harmful influences. Also, people in those parts tend to be a lot more intelligent of the severity of violence and murder. Knowing that also tends to be a part of the culture, and in fact, is an integral part of their history.
Its the media, they shouldn't have blown this killing as much as they should. They should've only covered it for a little bit and then move on.
If people would stop watching, the media would stop covering it.
On June 30 2014 05:23 heliusx wrote: While reducing the time spent on this coverage would be nice I don't think it's a cause.
Yeah I don't think you could blame coverage as a cause, perhaps a positive reinforcement, but even that is a bit of a stretch with a minimum of journalistic responsibility.
I think the semi weekly school shootings are more of a result of mental stress. Some of the stress is familial, some social, and some internal.
The source or motivation of the stress varies from shooter to shooter but almost 100% of them were on and off mood altering medication not tested on children (so basically we have almost no clue what it does to their brain chemistry).
These shootings are unquestionably a cultural issue. Not a single cultural issue but many. The prevalence of guns contributes, but is far from the primary issue. You can look at pretty much every aspect of these shooters lives and see how there was a culture which breeds malcontent. Obviously shooters tend to have some abnormal psychiatric condition that when compounded with the normal day to day BS results in outlashes like this tragedy (instead of your typical rebellion or 'acting-out').
Regardless without looking at society at large we'll never make any progress on these issues. If we continue to think the drastically disproportionate rate at which this happens in the US is just a coincidence unrelated to the world these kids are growing up in, we'll continue to ignore sensible changes and advocate some ridiculous ones.
On May 29 2014 03:38 Figgy wrote: The kid was clearly unstable.
If you read his manifesto he wouldn't actually go up to women and ask them to go up with him or anything of the sorts EVER.
He would just randomly wander town for absurd amounts of time (6 hours!) or lounge around in random restaraunts and expect women to come up with him and tell him to have sex with him and get extremely angry when it doesn't happen.
You can really tell he was extremely socially awkward and instead of trying to fix his problem he decided to blame everyone else including the other men for "taking what he deserved", he thought that he was a perfect human being while everyone else was completely wrong.
His belief was that women should throw themself on him because he "deserved" it and they should have no control over their own sex lives whatsoever. He goes so far to say that women should be locked up and be forced to only give sex to guys who "deserve it" and fuck everyone else and that he'd be the supreme ruler of this government and the reason it can't happen is because women have too many rights in this country over their own god damn body.
He's was utterly fucked up in the head and he wrote down every single fucked up thought he ever had.
Being a virgin at 22 isn't even that uncommon it's not like he was 40 years old you can't even make a porn until you're 18.
I was going to read it one day but thanks for that summary. That's unbelievable
On June 30 2014 00:32 Gotlander wrote: Yeah the guy had obvious psychological problems.
Not sure what autism has anything to do with this though.
He was taking psychotropic medications and refused to take them. Although I don't agree that this was what caused it. He had a very immature understanding of what attraction really is, possibly due to his isolation from social life.
On June 30 2014 00:32 Gotlander wrote: Yeah the guy had obvious psychological problems.
Not sure what autism has anything to do with this though.
He was taking psychotropic medications and refused to take them. Although I don't agree that this was what caused it. He had a very immature understanding of what attraction really is, possibly due to his isolation from social life.
On June 03 2014 01:44 urboss wrote: Given this map is correct, then Russia and most eastern countries don't seem to have any schoolschotings at all.
So I guess one could attribute this phenomenon to the western culture.
From what I can tell, data in the map comes from news reports (I presume, news reports written in English specifically). So it might be the case that incidents in non-English speaking regions are getting under reported.
I dont think this is the case. Media in Eastern Europe love mass murders just like media in USA. I think that mass shootings dont happen here mostly because its very hard to get a gun.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/d416c99fe1d49a23ef7ce06cf105fd30/tumblr_n63x05ASLl1rith1uo1_500.png)
I can't change your comprehension, I'm sorry.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/e6xnGVk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9B52nXp.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t6dOHLv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/i1AxPrS.jpg)
