Seven dead in drive by California shootings

[quadraginta]

<snip>

And in the face of this incredible and highly concise confession, people insist on second-guessing misogyny as his motive. Either it's "he killed a lot of people and so was obviously crazy, thus his motives aren't really that important"

I seem to have missed most of that part.

or "a couple of sentences in his pages-long screed against women mentioned also hating the men those women had sex with instead of him, so obviously he hated everyone the same and wasn't especially misogynist". It's amazing. Fantastical. Mind-boggling.

I saw that one once or twice, but not enough to consider it a common opinion.

 

[Autolite]

Could someone explain this to me? When knives are brought up in defense of gun violence, I can't help but map it to something like, "Why should we try to eradicate small pox and polio since influenza is killing people?"

I don't understand.

Because gun control is as effective at preventing violent crime as eating "Life Savers" (Reg.TM) would be as a way of eradicating small pox and polio.

Understand now???

 

[Checkmite]

I seem to have missed most of that part.

One iteration:

....And this was my point. He was clearly VERY mentally ill.

Why are many of us so quick to blame this on whatever ideology he held when HE WAS CLEARLY VERY MENTALLY ILL?

 

[Autolite]

Post deleted...

 

[SimplyAghast]

Once again, to make it clear - the reason why people are suggesting extreme misogyny was a driving factor behind this crime is because it's the reason the killer gave.

So many times one of these mass murder events happens, and when it comes to the "why" we're basically stuck with "we'll never really know", only having to settle for ambiguous clues derived from web search histories or posters the guy had taped up in his room, or conflicting witness statements about what the guy said during the rampage or what not.

Here we have a case where the killer helpfully left this tome behind where he lays out, in excruciating, disgusting, microscopic detail, his thought processes leading up to his killing spree. Women are evil, women are animals, they don't deserve rights, they have rejected me and failed to have sex with me and for that they deserve to die, and I will kill as many of them and the men they've chosen instead of me as I can, he says. And in the face of this incredible and highly concise confession, people insist on second-guessing misogyny as his motive. Either it's "he killed a lot of people and so was obviously crazy, thus his motives aren't really that important" or "a couple of sentences in his pages-long screed against women mentioned also hating the men those women had sex with instead of him, so obviously he hated everyone the same and wasn't especially misogynist". It's amazing. Fantastical. Mind-boggling.

Seriously, if some guy were to shoot up an inner-city school and left a note saying "I shall purge this great white country of all the (expletive beginning with the letter N)s, starting with this school", would his bullets hitting a few of the white students make anyone say "well now wait a moment here, let's not jump to the conclusion that racism had anything to do with what this guy did"?

So this terrible Rodger person left behind a document in which he clearly advocated harming women. He then went on to do it primarily, in your mind, because of his ideology.

What do you plan to do with this person who advocates population control so that men will represent only "1 to 10% of the population"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvEJfN-jiS4

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The JREF forum is overtly and rabidly anti-gun. To pretend differently seems rather dishonest.

If anything, it's a 50/50 split. Every time I've ever been in a gun debate on this forum, I've gotten dogpiled by hobbyists who spew the same old talking points:
"So, should we make cars illegal, because you could kill somebody with a car"
"An armed society is a polite society." (e.g. If everybody had a gun during a shooting spree, the gunman couldn't have killed as many people.)
"Only criminals kill people. Just don't sell the guns to criminals."
etc. etc.

So, which one will it be today?

However, because the alleged perp supposedly knifed three people to death (and IIRC also used his car as a weapon) then it would be foolish to use this incident to stage an 'anti-gun' rant.

How many were killed by the knife? The car? The gun? Are you saying that these are all equally deadly when used as a weapon? If you were going to arm a police force, which of these three "weapons" would you give them?

The focus of this discussion is evidently on the mental state of the killer rather than the weapons used. Although this is a sensible, rational and welcomed approach in trying to determine the true reason for the commission of this crime it only further underscores the hypocrisy of the anti-gun crowd...

How so?

 

[Dissolution]

So this terrible Rodger person left behind a document in which he clearly advocated harming women. He then went on to do it primarily, in your mind, because of his ideology.

What do you plan to do with this person who advocates population control so that men will represent only "1 to 10% of the population"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvEJfN-jiS4

Pretty sure that Femitheist turned out to be a troll who faked a suicide by posting various things online, like an obituary.
Could be wrong, though.

 

[Checkmite]

So this terrible Rodger person left behind a document in which he clearly advocated harming women. He then went on to do it primarily, in your mind, because of his ideology.

What do you plan to do with this person who advocates population control so that men will represent only "1 to 10% of the population"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jvEJfN-jiS4

So your problem isn't really that the person's ideology, "whatever it was", is being blamed; your problem is specifically that a misogynist ideology is being blamed, and your reaction is defensive - finding an extreme example of a directly opposed ideology and presenting it, as if daring others to come down as hard against it as they have against the killer's misogyny.

I am absolutely opposed to any ideology which advocates population control, including this person's. I find the very idea of population control abhorrent. And even as someone who sympathizes more with feminism than against it, you'll never find me excusing a woman who plans or attempts a mass-killing of men by trying to distract from the fact of the motives she herself gives or saying oh, she was clearly crazy and her actions should in no way reflect on those who believe all men are mindless beast-objects who don't deserve rights but have never killed anyone for it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And this is part of the problem: the idea that if you pay for sex, you're a lesser person.

It probably depends on how much you pay.

And what she looks like.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The JREF forum is overtly and rabidly anti-gun. To pretend differently seems rather dishonest.

Making fun of gun nuts <> anti-gun.

Many of the "anti-gun" people here have posted about owning guns.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is that the Doctor Who author Miles?

Yes.

In which case I think such as diagnosis has some validity.

He's certainly said that he's been diagnosed with some form of mental illness, and has spoken about once, and only once, having a completely real-seeming hallucination, but the schizophrenia was a misdiagnosis, based on the fact that his doctor took something he was saying in a metaphorical sense as if he meant it literally. As in, he was making general points about the people who ran the world, using the colourful terminology "the big brains that rule the world", and his doctor thought he literally thought there was an association of Ood brains controlling the human race.

 

[colander]

Aspergers can rob you of humor and compassion and simply being cool. Your roommate takes your two candles and puts them on top if his bed. Instead of laughing your ass off when he denies taking them you call the police. Then you have another chance to not press charges when the cops give you your candles back but instead you proceed.

Then later a guy named Checkmite wonders what's wrong with that whole thing.

Have you ever actually known anyone with Aspergers?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

You really, really want to avoid talking about his misogyny, don't you? I wonder why...

Okay, let's talk about it.

Blaming "crazy" is dismissive and counter-productive. It explains nothing and solves nothing. Misogyny is very real and extremely toxic, however, and it can be fought against, even if it'll never completely go away.

Very real, and very rare. Misogyny is hatred of women. Not prejudice, not stereotyping...outright hatred.
Thinking that women are bad at math doesn't make you a misogynist.
Objectifying women doesn't make you a misogynist.
Disagreeing with feminists doesn't make you a misogynist.
Having a different concept of sexual equality doesn't make you a misogynist.
Hating women does make you a misogynist.
Yet, a lot of people are using the term "misogynist" to mean "chauvinist" or "sexist". I guess those words just don't have the same punch anymore. It appears to me that feminists are using a rhetorical trick to cast their opponents as hateful bigots merely because they disagree with them.

I think it's obvious that this guy was a misogynist, if anybody was.

Relevant:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/25/5749480/why-yesallwomen-is-the-most-important-thing-youll-read-today
https://twitter.com/hashtag/YesAllWomen?src=hash

The #YesAllWomen name is a bit mysterious. From my Google diggings, the origin of it is apparently a feminist meme called "Not All Men". Feminists would bring up an example of sexism ("misogyny"), and then somebody (presumably male) would say "But not all men are like that!" So, feminists began to mock this talking point, in typical Internet fashion, by turning it into a meme (albeit one that doesn't seem to have gotten far outside the feminist demesne).

So, while "Not All Men" may be horrible misogynists, "Yes All Women" have been affected by horrible misogynists. Have I interpreted this correctly?

He wrote a big-ass manifesto about his misogyny, but let's not talk about that because CRAZY YA KNOW, there, done. *wipes hands on pants*

What do you hope to gain by talking about it?

 

[quadraginta]

I seem to have missed most of that part.

One iteration:

....And this was my point. He was clearly VERY mentally ill.

Why are many of us so quick to blame this on whatever ideology he held when HE WAS CLEARLY VERY MENTALLY ILL?

This doesn't support the claim you made, no matter how much you might want to pretend it does.

 

[colander]

And is a popular recreational item in suburbia.

So is coffee. And according to Rodger's memoir, he often spent his morning sipping lattes at Starbucks. The plot thickens!!!

 

[Checkmite]

This doesn't support the claim you made, no matter how much you might want to pretend it does.

I understand that you disagree.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

No, you're kidding?

So, I don't consider having money and a fancy car to be a part of the "dating game". I believe that most women care more about a man's personality and emotional IQ than whether or not he can buy her fancy trinkets or take her to expensive restaurants. Don't get me wrong; having cash monies is definitely a plus, but if your personality stinks bad enough, no woman's going to want to be with you (as this guy so amply demonstrated). For dating, having lots of money is neither necessary nor sufficient. Isn't that what feminism teaches us?

Never said it did. What I did say is he had it better than most people but seemed more interested in brooding than actually learning how to get laid.

This guy had both class and sexual privilege, but wasn't able to get female attention because his personality stank. He was mentally ill. There may very well have been nothing he could do to help himself, and nothing that anybody else could have done to fix his situation. Maybe psychiatry is unable to fix somebody this broken. Perhaps the best-case situation here would've been to lock him up in a sanitarium.

 

[colander]

Yes.



He's certainly said that he's been diagnosed with some form of mental illness, and has spoken about once, and only once, having a completely real-seeming hallucination, but the schizophrenia was a misdiagnosis, based on the fact that his doctor took something he was saying in a metaphorical sense as if he meant it literally. As in, he was making general points about the people who ran the world, using the colourful terminology "the big brains that rule the world", and his doctor thought he literally thought there was an association of Ood brains controlling the human race.

I'm not sure you can rely on this guy's account of what the doctor was thinking re: diagnosing him with schizophrenia. The world isn't actually controlled by a couple of near-omnipotent shadowy personages, but that kind of ideation is often observed in several mental disorders, schizophrenia being a particularly common culprit. The doctor wouldn't have needed to think he was talking about literal disembodied brains in vats to be nudged towards a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

 

[SezMe]

I think it stands for "involuntarily celibate". It's what people like the subject of this thread refer to themselves and each other as on their websites.

Thank you. In that case, it was a stupid question and I won't bother trying to reply

JREF forum is anti-gun to the core and moderated as such. This should be obvious to the most casual observer.

Others have addressed this so I'll just dog pile: The only thing obvious is the gun goggles you are wearing.

 

[Baylor]

So, I don't consider having money and a fancy car to be a part of the "dating game".

I do. Women do care about men's resources. This is a fact.

I believe that most women care more about a man's personality and emotional IQ than whether or not he can buy her fancy trinkets or take her to expensive restaurants. Don't get me wrong; having cash monies is definitely a plus, but if your personality stinks bad enough, no woman's going to want to be with you (as this guy so amply demonstrated). For dating, having lots of money is neither necessary nor sufficient.

They care about resources, physical attractiveness, a man having his own domicile. Since he had most things women like, minus the personality, his obstacles were easy to clear compared to most people's. Hence he got a good roll in his "crapshoot."

This guy had both class and sexual privilege, but wasn't able to get female attention because his personality stank. He was mentally ill. There may very well have been nothing he could do to help himself, and nothing that anybody else could have done to fix his situation. Maybe psychiatry is unable to fix somebody this broken. Perhaps the best-case situation here would've been to lock him up in a sanitarium.

While I might agree. However, an EXTRAORDINARILY BAD ATTITUDE is something that is conidered malleable. It's pointless to speculate whether his was or wasn't. Just be happy his genes are cleared from the genepool.