He’s certainly a criminal.
Maybe a victim, but that doesn’t in any way change the fact that he killed a bunch of kids cause his feelings were hurt. My feelings were hurt plenty through bullying, pretty much daily for years, and I never once thought that I should actually kill the kids responsible. He needs to be locked up for a long time.
An interesting (and horrifying) take. Some of the details on these shooter’s victims make me think places like 4chan / Reddit and all their circle jerk Incel weirdness are having a significant negative impact.
Oh I don’t think there is any doubt that places like 4chan and many Reddit places, are massive negative forces in society. They give spaces for these fucked up subcultures and ideas to ferment, and absolutely do contribute to some of these violent acts.
While I certainly agree that misogyny plays a part in these violent outbursts, this makes no sense to me:
I just don’t buy that you can “teach” away the impulses that lead to misogyny. A frustrated person is going to try to resolve their frustration, whether it be sexual, financial, political, whatever. If the person is mentally damaged enough to accept violence as a solution, then that’s what they do. You’re not going to fix misogynistic violence by telling those men that they’re not entitled to what their biology is driving toward. And don’t forget that even if you could somehow “teach away” sexual frustration, there’s a ton of counter-programming in the form of mass media that is “teaching” that successful men get the girl.
No, the solution needs to be meeting the need, not teaching some kind of repression.
Can’t these people just jerk off like the rest of us?
Incidentally, what happened to that idea people had that the media should start showing gory pics instead of shots of tearful survivors?
Seriously, I’d be OK with the New York Times running a picture of a bloodied corpse on its front page. It would be obscene, but infinitely less so than what is actually happening.
I’m not convinced all these kids are mentally damaged just because they kill someone and were frustrated leading up to the event. I know it’s the media’s favorite thing to do, portray certain groups as mentally damaged as an explanation, but it’s not really proven. Maybe there are a few that are, but these kids are acting like they’re entitled, to the extreme degree, and I think they have been told they should have these things they don’t have, repeatedly, and probably before their engulfment in yeah you deserve that fuck them thing that’s in these toxic online communities.
That’s fair…I’m using the term “mentally damaged” largely because it’s been thrown around in the media. I’m no psychologist, but the way I look at it is this: everyone in their natural state lies somewhere along a violence continuum from “complete pacifist” to “utter berserker” with most folks somewhere in the middle. We consider those way out on the violent end to be damaged, because they are willing to use violence as a tool for things that most of us wouldn’t ever even consider. Like being turned down for dates, or ignored at the lunch tables at school, as a political statement, etc.
I have no idea what tools are available to assess someone in these terms. Is there a sort of Myers-Briggs test for violence? Maybe something like that could catch some of these folks before they act.
I am not sure what the answer is either. I do know that not everyone who is bullied, who is depressed, disappointed and anti-social turns into a mass murderer.
I would support anti-bullying attempts, in general, but we’re in a world where the same group that demands free speech and thinks that any request like these is consider a snowflake culture they have to despise but might turn around the very next day and complain their son or daughter was bullied… not at all seeing these things are related.
We’re never really going to eliminate mean kids, especially if turning down a date makes someone perceive someone as mean, but we can certainly encourage inclusion.
We can also reduce the potential for death by reducing the means of violence, in others words, reasonable gun control measures. The writer Mark Kleiman wrote a few things about the war on drugs, under the idea that we may never be able to eliminate drug addiction and drug trafficking, but that we can makes changes to lessen the impact. He called this “harm reduction”.
It seems to me that having some reasonable regulations on guns would be a huge step towards harm reduction in terms of school and workplace violence.
Duh, muthafucka, DUH!
(The preceding righteous indignation is directed at the galling inaction on this issue, not the honorable Mr. Sharpe.)
It’s a good thing you made that correction b/c I was just about to unleash Pinkerton Bird on you. He would have gone birdshit crazy on you just as soon as he finished his french fry.
He looks sweet and pleasant but he’s got a bite that can send you leaping out of your comfy chair shouting “Ow my toe my toe!”
The only thing that can stop a bad bird with a French fry is a good bird with a French fry, etc etc
Do NOT try to take Pinkerton’s french fry.
Is it just, like, the one? Or is it like Murphy Brown’s assistants?
you guys we’re all so oooolllldddd
A handy site for anybody keeping count:
FROM HIS COLD DEAD CLAWS
Dead kids, dead kids, so much fun
Dead kids, dead kids, all praise the gun!
The NRA’s new goal: reasonable limits on the 1st Amendment to limit how the media can cover mass shootings.
Yeah, that’s real. The 2nd Amendment is inviolable and can not be interpreted in any way to limit one’s right to own guns! But about that 1st Amendment…
“Pass a law stopping the media from reporting the killer’s name or showing his face. You can still report on the shootings. We just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations.”
