Another fucking spree shooting. Great.

The guns vs mental illness discussion reminds me of the drinking vs driving discussion. In both cases, for different cultural reasons, we like to focus on the thing that does not actually do the killing (which is guns and cars). In both cases, the thing that actually does the killing is bound up in cultural notions of independence and power (mostly masculine notions, obv). It is mentally unstable people WITH GUNS that create hazard, just as it is drunk people WITH CARS. Absent the killing machines, those people may be risks to themselves, but not to the population at large.

mostly masculine notions, obv

cars are pretty universal

Right but their symbolism is traditionally masculine. It's been broadened and marketed to everyone over the years -- but always with this Thunder Road-ish notion of individual freedom and power. Guns have been marketed to women, too. But the bottom line with both is this lone-wolf notion of self-sufficiency that I think works against seeing the vehicle itself as the problem. The problem is in the operator, not the machine. The machine is liberty.

Right but their symbolism is traditionally masculine

"traditionally"? you really think "cars" (not muscle cars, not porsches, but just... all cars) are strongly valenced as masculine?

i think you're making a false analogy and talking out of your ass in an attempt to double down on it. whatever.

I think cars were traditionally masculine in the early days, but that was so long ago that it doesn't hold any sway today.

if this dude's life was like a movie it'd be a mix of revenge of the nerds and falling down. this guy's beginning, middle, and end can be tracked pretty closely to crappy hollywood movies.

"traditionally"? you really think "cars" (not muscle cars, not porsches, but just... all cars) are strongly valenced as masculine?

Yeah, I do. But you're focusing on the "masculine" part here, which isn't exactly my point. It's more that in American culture in particular, guns and cars are invested with this mythos of freedom and self-determination. And I think in both cases, that mythos prevents us from seeing them clearly when it comes to the damage they do. Guns and cars don't kill people, mental illness and alcohol do. Etc.

They aren't equivalent obviously -- cars have a lot more practical day to day use than guns -- but I think American notions of individualism play heavily in how we deal with both of them.

the American sense of 'entitlement to have a car' is noticeable when coming from a country such as the UK imo. (Obv it's absolutely vital for most areas so not saying it's without reason).

A French ex-Syria fighter from Roubaix (North of France) has been arrested in Marseille, France, by chance (drug test on the bus he was on) for the triple murder in the jewish museum in Brussels - he had a GoPro camera and a Kalashnikov gun with him, same type that was used in the attack. (loads of extreme and/or gullible muslims are being recruited in Western Europe to go fight for the cause in Syria & if still alive, they tend to come back even more extremist than they already were) He has been in jail for a hold up a couple of years ago as well.

You mean the patriarchy hurts men too? Someone should tell feminists, seems important.

― Disagree. And im not into firey solos chief. (Phil D.), Saturday, May 31, 2014 4:57 AM (Yesterday)

what, my terminology isn't approved? cuz yeah, what this thread really needs is a bunch of snide sucker punches between people who basically agree w/ one another. hooray for social justice.

god that jezebel article. the internet is rarely so (so) much worse than i might imagine :(

one of the most disturbing things about it (for me) is that someone suggested (in the jez article? here?) that a large proportion of the people posting on pua-hater sites are posing/provoking/there merely to inflame and agitate the people who sincerely hold those beliefs. if that's the case, someone thinks it's funny/amusing/entertaining to propagate hateful garbage? those people are not absolved for their responsibility in this mess just because they were posting insincerely. it's not as bad as killing people obvs, but it's not innocent and and it's not funny and it's definitely not helping.

i do wonder from what little i've read how anyone would know the difference

what, my terminology isn't approved? cuz yeah, what this thread really needs is a bunch of snide sucker punches between people who basically agree w/ one another. hooray for social justice.

No, it's just amusing watching events like this spur men into *deep insights, man* about stuff that feminists have been saying for nigh unto half a century now.

(I'm male btw)

i'm not trying to pretend i have any deep insights available. and i'm as familiar as you w/ the "stuff" in question. begging your kind forgiveness for saying something others have said before. fwiw, i was responding to the vague but hovering idea itt that misogynist "incel" communities are best viewed as collections of assholes, rather than products of a deeply fucked culture. why not both?

still wrestling with the suggestion of trolls in that puahate chatroom ref'd in jezebel

like i get that trolls exist & contemplating their motivations is a stupid waste of time

but what the fuck.

gonna go bite down on a cynadide capsule now, bye

No, it's just amusing watching events like this spur men into *deep insights, man*

Well you know if a man somewhere can at least experience some deep insights that might be one less guy getting involved in that pua forum, no?

you can't assume - even on the INTERNET, BY GOD - that everyone has an extensive or even decent appreciation of feminist theory

no, but nor is it a good idea to assume that every potentially teachable moment deserves a good smackdown

maybe these guys are too far gone though... the puahate guys i mean, not the run of the mill adolescent "nice guy." like, maybe they'll never be compassionately taught not to be hateful dickheads and what's needed is just someone telling them that they're thinking on these issues is unacceptable and won't be tolerated.

http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/2014/05/notes-on-ucsb-students-confronting-isla.html

lol contenderizer - that's what i was thinking!

am grouchy. at stupid work when i want to be at stupid home. grrrz.

are there actually any groups organizing for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? I can't find a single one.

any srs anti-gun group will be dedicated to things that could actually happen

the NRA's goals were insane once upon a time too

had a heated discussion with a friend last night who blames this on 'the media' and 'violence in the culture'' (videogames and movies). unproductive sidetrack into tipper gore and the 90s. tried my best to push the idea that gun control is the way forward. but 'freedom'! 'individual rights'! ugh, ok whatever, but couldn't we just try 'gun control' in some small place in this country and see if it works? i mean i get that violence is complicated, but at some point you have to do something simple about a complicated problem, no? does not mean that the problem is solved across all domains, but baby steps ffs.

when was that? 1680? xp

it drives me crazy when people suggest that gun control "will not solve the problem. crazy people will still kill people, etc." of course it won't eliminate the problem entirely. statistically, some bad things are going to happen. it's about limiting the horribleness of the things that can happen out there in the tails of the distribution. it's also about reducing the frequency of the most horrible things. if people built bridges with that same "well, you can't stop all bad things from happening so let's just have a free-for-all" shit attitude, we'd see more problems with bridges as well.

obviously I'm not arguing with anyone itt, so that is not a helpful post. but that seems to be a common logical thread running through my facebook lately, and I am venting.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

and that doesnt even show that 165 of them deserved it

if you show these people data on australia, they'll point to norway. to extend my horrible bridge analogy, it's like showing someone a rickety old bridge in the USA ,and then demonstrating out how such a bridge was reinforced to be safer for everybody in australia. they then point to some fancy norwegian bridge and say, but "that bridge doesn't need to be reinforced, so we don't have to reinforce our bridge either". then we all walk across the rickety old bridge that's not reinforced and die.

much like anti-abortion advocates are really just anti-birth control, anti-gun control advocates are really just anti-not-murdering.

obv the US is a pro murdering country and if you don't like it you can go to canada u hippie

yeah, there's just a huge number of people in the u.s. who basically love sanctioned murder. it gets them up in the morning.

this has the unfortunate consequence of reminding of that "his hobby is moyda" adam sandler song

well see a life avoiding Sandler has its benefits after all

many, many benefits

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-friedland/virgin-homicides-the-matr_b_5435217.html?utm_hp_ref=college&ir=College

I don't think Rodger hated women as much as he hated himself. He was very intelligent, good-looking, if small and awkward, a wealthy drop-out from the local city college who could not compete for women with the muscled bros who surfed, spiked the volleyball and were thriving in a state university that over the years has become a major academic institution. He wasn't as big or strong as they were; he wasn't as academically qualified as they were; he wasn't as white as they were. And he couldn't get the blonde sorority women who were so alluring to him to pay him any mind. Indeed, he didn't have enough self-confidence to even approach them.

* * * *

Rodger's violence was fueled out of his humiliation as a man. Hatred of the women who spurned him was its result, not its cause.

* * * *

With the economic pillars of masculine domination crumbling, sexual conquest and physical strength are all that is left to many men as ways to prove themselves to be "real" men. Their importance is intensified by the fact that we live in a world where the market increasingly rules all and an individual's ability to get his own personal pleasure is the ultimate measure of human worth and dignity. Without education, without work, without physical strength, attracting women appeared to this 22-year-old virgin as the only terrain in which he might prove his manhood

* * * *

Slightly built, beaten up by boys he confronted in Isla Vista, called a "faggot" as a kid and online, he was now armed with guns and ammo.

not sure about one line ("Hatred of the women who spurned him was its result, not its cause") or part of the article's conclusions, but otherwise, this is the point i was making above.

yeah, I'm not yet sure if I fully agree with all of the points therein. But I still don't trust that I can think about the cause and prevention with a clear head.

eh if you read his manifesto it is pretty apparent he is not intelligent or wealthy

I don't think Rodger hated women as much as he hated himself.

It's not a zero-sum game here and this is clumsy/bad logic. He hated himself AND he had learned that it was rewarding to hate women, that it was consistent w societal norms, acceptable to his peers (online if he had none irl), and emotionally satisfying in a way that hating himself wasn't.

Hatred of the women who spurned him was its result, not its cause.

Again, THERE'S NO SIGN THAT ANY EVER SPURNED HIM. First of all, "women," in this construction, is a vague and totally amorphous blob of every woman out there and therefore none in particular. It's meaningless. Additionally, the logic that women's rejection--even if with good cause because this man was both violent and cruel--could have in any way altered his path by being "nicer," and let's not mince words, what we mean is sexually available for him to use and dominate, because that's the only way he related to them, is abhorrent and blames "women" (again, all and therefore none) for his malformed worldview. Yes I know that's a long sentence, there was a lot of wrong to deal with, okay?

With the economic pillars of masculine domination crumbling, sexual conquest and physical strength are all that is left to many men as ways to prove themselves to be "real" men. Their importance is intensified by the fact that we live in a world where the market increasingly rules all and an individual's ability to get his own personal pleasure is the ultimate measure of human worth and dignity.

I...I can't. I need a lot more of something before I can tackle this para. Alcohol, possibly.

HE THREW COFFEE OUT HIS CAR WINDOW ONTO WOMEN WHO DIDN'T SMILE AT HIM and then wished that it were hotter so it could have burned their skin. For anyone to even engage with the theory that it was his lack of success at getting sexual access to women that made him violent requires a level of buy-in to patriarchy that invalidates anything they have to say.

in orbit very, very OTM

Their importance is intensified by the fact that we live in a world where the market increasingly rules all and an individual's ability to get his own personal pleasure is the ultimate measure of human worth and dignity.

WHAT WORLD IS THIS? IT ISN'T EVEN REAL.

yeah, analysis needs to begin at the point where you say that all of these women, even the semi-mythologized "perfect blonde sorority bitches," were totally right on in rejecting him. wouldn't you? he needed friends, fine. everybody does. but life is short.

I can't even deal with the fact that the author is a college professor of sociology who can neither write nor think, based on that essay.

by that i mean that the whole script of rejection-->murder needs to be erased. eh i'm not really making my point well.

xp