Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Why you gotta be so rude?

Well now you've got that 'marry her anyway' song stuck in my head, so thanks for that.

You speak English right? You know what it means to provoke something? You know what a conversation is? So work it out then.

Cause this sounds like a really passive aggressive way of calling me weird or something, which is against the forum rules. Why don't you try to have some respect?

I'm not passively aggressively calling you anything. Ask around if you want, if I want to call someone something I'll just say it.

Anyhow, I was making fun of you trying to use loaded language to make a point, which ultimately just ended up producing a bit of gibberish. She was starting a conversation. Simple, plain English that described exactly what happened. But that's neutral language that didn't place blame on her like you desired, so instead you said provoked. Which produced a silly sentence, that I wanted to make fun of.

Point being, just use neutral language, and don't get clever with loaded language. It just makes people roll their eyes, and sometimes laugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Quiet Sebster your rocking my "zen" of reading

Sorry mate. Didn't mean to provoke you in to reading something you were trying to ignore

 sebster wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
The shame of it is he even wrote about the police visit and had they had a warrant to look at his room they would have caught him. What's more disturbing is that he was known to the sherif's department from my understanding, In one of the 3 incidents he performed a citizens arrest one of his room mates. Had no problem with a background check sadly. Even then, he clearly had no issue stabbing people. He was clearly a very disturbed individual, I don't much care about his delusions or ideology.

Ah, that's right, I'd forgotten about the previous incidents with the police. I didn't know that a warrant would have given the police evidence that could have stopped him - what would they have seen?

Anyhow, it seems that too often people lurch in to one political position or another, whether its guns or attitudes towards women or anything else, but the conversation about whether better systems might have increases the chance of stopping this before it happened. Obviously there's limits on what can be done, but a talk about what those limits are and how we could develop better systems within those limits never seems to happen.

Well, this guy seems to have been failed by his culture. Healthier attitudes towards sex and romance might have stopped him from going off the deep end.

Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.

On the police front, I don't know. Should posting a video on youtube about how you're going to murder someone be illegal? Isn't it already illegal? It sounds like the video was pretty specific. Why wasn't that followed up on? At the same time, we have to understand that some people getting murdered sometimes is part of the price we have to pay for not living in a police state. We should try to reduce the chances of these things happening, but witchhunts aren't the way to go about doing that. Genuine attempts to improve it are necessary, not CYA stuff. That probably means an honest discussion about what people can actually legally say.

Politically, I'd guess all this stuff is going to be unpopular and it's easier for elected representatives and hopefuls to mouth platitudes than actually address any of it, because more people will probably vote against someone because they're going to steal our guns or they're misandrist or they want to stifle free speech or they want to put more money into mental health so they're having to raise taxes than will actually get excited about it and vote for them on the basis of it. Or alternatively, because the US is run by the rich and corporations and they probably get mass-murdered at a lower rate than the average (especially corporations).

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Holy crap what a bs non-argument?

That's right, there's no argument. Why would I bother arguing with that?

Because there are people who hold interesting, informed and often quite good arguments against feminism, but you're not one of them, as your statement so clearly demonstrates. You're not part of the real debate, a person to be engaged on this issue, but something more like an insect trapped in amber, to be studied to highlight the craziness and cluelessness that lurks in some portion of the anti-feminist counter movement.

I have Ouze and Sebster agreeing with me, I don't manage that too often

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got...weird.

This isn't about women. This is about a spoiled narcissist psycho who killed men and women. He was crazy as a gak rat and if it wasn't women, something else would have set him off. A sane person don't think "hey I'm going to go shoot up wimminz and stab my roomates and run over people because I didn't get my way."

+1

 friendlycommissar wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Oooh, what if she's black?

What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.

If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.

Are you trying to out insane me?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Well, this guy seems to have been failed by his culture. Healthier attitudes towards sex and romance might have stopped him from going off the deep end.

Possibly. He could have also been a nut who picked the one thing that wasn't handed to him on a plate to justify the murderous rampage he was always going to have. I honestly don't know.

I guess the issue is that such a conversation

Not having access to a gun probably would've helped him not kill as many people, or any at all. I'm not up on where the gun he used was actually from. If he had signs of being mentally disturbed (and the youtube video seems to be a pretty big sign) maybe someone should have confiscated it. I'm sure that would worry a lot of gun-owning Americans, though.

Now, I'm on very much on the side that having more guns in society clearly leads to more gun violence*, but given this guy stabbed to death three of his victims I don't think this is the smartest incident on which to push for gun control.

On the police front, I don't know. Should posting a video on youtube about how you're going to murder someone be illegal? Isn't it already illegal?

I'm not sure if the video was illegal (it wasn't directed specifically at anyone), nor am I sure the video was brought to police attention before the murder spree. But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step. This issue isn't just about spree killers, but also really important in terms of domestic violence, where some level of intervention (even just mandatory therapy sessions) could likely have prevented a violent spiral to murder.


*Though that doesn't automatically lead to a justification for greater restrictions on guns, for a whole bunch of reasons that get hashed out in every single gun control thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Are you trying to out insane me?

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

It's worth highlighting that the guy had allegedly been seeing mental health specialists of some form or another since age 9 and the visit the welfare visit by the sheriff's deputies was requested by his parents, they're divorced but were both concerned about his state due to what he had posted online.

 Hordini wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

According to the people hatefully bashing "Moms Night Out," a lot.

 sebster wrote:
Anyhow, I was making fun of you trying to use loaded language to make a point, which ultimately just ended up producing a bit of gibberish. She was starting a conversation. Simple, plain English that described exactly what happened. But that's neutral language that didn't place blame on her like you desired, so instead you said provoked. Which produced a silly sentence, that I wanted to make fun of.

Point being, just use neutral language, and don't get clever with loaded language. It just makes people roll their eyes, and sometimes laugh.

Well that's the most hypocritical thing I've read all week.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

According to the people hatefully bashing "Moms Night Out," a lot.

For example?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

According to the people hatefully bashing "Moms Night Out," a lot.

My friend saw that movie, the problem wasnt the housewife thing, but how they treated the womens crippling anxiety.

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

According to the people hatefully bashing "Moms Night Out," a lot.

For example?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/moms-night-out-is-patronizing-with-gender-roles/article18568664/?service=mobile

That's just one. Feminists don't seem to be a big fan of the stay at home mom in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there's glorious nonsense like this:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this:

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

 Hordini wrote:
Is there something wrong with being a housewife?

There's nothing wrong with people being whatever they choose to be. If a woman chooses to stay at home rather than go back in to the workforce, good luck to her. If she chooses that she wants to continue working, good luck in that as well.

There's a hell of a lot wrong with someone claiming that it's okay that most big earners are men because they marry women, because being a powerful executive is totally the same thing as being married to a powerful executive.

 cincydooley wrote:


http://m.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/moms-night-out-is-patronizing-with-gender-roles/article18568664/?service=mobile

That's just one. Feminists don't seem to be a big fan of the stay at home mom in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there's glorious nonsense like this:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this:

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/1-wives-are-helping-kill-feminism-and-make-the-war-on-women-possible/258431/

That is some interesting stuff. But to be fair, parents often look down on women or men who dont have kids.

 friendlycommissar wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
The most ostentatiously privileged housewife is still a housewife.

Oooh, what if she's black?

What if she's a stay at home dad? Is his life a pointless waste then as well? Because I'll bet not one of you believes that. Who here wants to say that househusbands are wasting their lives, and that being a stay-at-home dad is a poor end for a man? Ann Romney is an avid equestrian and does tremendous amounts of charity work. She is independently wealthy thanks to her father. She has lived in luxury her entire life. My grandmother did the exact same thing. These are not lives of oppression.

A person is measured (or should be) upon their own merits, not those of their wife, husband, or otherwise. My point is that the most pivileged houseperson is the housekeeper, not a function of their, ugh, "breadwinner".

If she was black, she likely would have been poor. Because racial discrimination actually does lead to intergenerational poverty. Doesn't work that way with gender, because rich people have daughters, and when rich daughters decide they want to go into the workforce at the highest levels, that's exactly what happens. Women shattered the supposed glass ceiling in one generation - basically as soon as women tried to break the glass ceiling, it broke. That's because it was never real.

Except when they don't. There's many discussions about the all the situations when they done. STEM salaries are disproportionate in situations when you compare men versus women. Case in point, I make more and am listed as a senior QA person at work while the woman (with experience, who even helped me get the damned position to begin with) is only a "regular" QA person at work, and she has the experience, and in all honesty is probably better at what we do than I am. I'm a guy though, and "should" make more than she does. Honestly, I disagree, but this is a flawed world with bad things happening at all bad circumstances. I don't know the difference in bands, but it's at least 6-10k. It's substantial.

She's white, also. The couple of black people I worked with? One made more than I did, in spite of holding a lesser position, and the other one was in the same pay scale I am. He left for a better paying job.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter about any of this. I don't think I should get paid what I do, but that's the magic of the private sector. I'm just telling it like I hear it.

I know its a running joke in Afghanistan now...

1 "You alright troop?"
2 "Negative Sargeant."
1 "Your hand not in a caste so just change it up and use the other and pretend she or he is new to it."
2 "That's not.."
1 "Clean your damn weapon afterwards to."
2 "But..."
1 "Drink water to"
2 "But"
1 "Clean the 240 to"

 sebster wrote:
There's a hell of a lot wrong with someone claiming that it's okay that most big earners are men because they marry women, because being a powerful executive is totally the same thing as being married to a powerful executive.

That is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that women are not excluded from the upper tiers of elite wealth despite seeming to be excluded from the most elite positions. And yes, for most intents and purposes, being married to a powerful executive is the same thing as being a powerful executive. You have the same quality of life, the same health care access, the same social protections from crime and hardship, the same freedom of movement and access to elite halls of power. Most of these women have their own personal fortunes and can easily afford their own interests, and have no need to work. So they don't.

The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not. As time has moved forward and the idea of careers for women has become more popular and more role models have emerged, its rapidly becoming a de facto assumption that women of all classes will work, and more women are seeking careers. But the lack of women at the highest levels of power has a lot more to do with generation than discrimination. With women graduating college at higher rates and going into politics and business at higher rates, all those fields will eventually change.

It can't be compared to the lack of black people in the halls of power, which is a result of institutional discrimination against blacks.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
I mean what the hell dude? You are seriously going to draw a line from guys feeling bent out of shape over being rejected and this "self-obsessed, murderous lunatic?" Only someone who thinks really poorly of men finds an idea like that reasonable. Read this story. Oh hey, a woman got rejected as a friend on Facebook and freaked out so much she set this couple's house on fire with them in it. Hey, let me spin this into some inane theory about how women feel entitled to people's time and get violent and psychotic when they are rejected. This totally proves that women be crazy!

Oh FFS, do your really not understand the difference between an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry and a consistent pattern of reinforcing an ideology that leads fairly easily to murder? This shooting didn't happen in isolation, the guy was involved in a community that strongly believes that men are entitled to get sex from women if they follow all of the rules, feminism is evil because it lets women say no, and anyone who ever says no to you is a heartless who doesn't value "nice guys" enough. Is it really a surprise that when someone keeps hearing "women are your enemy, they're abusing you" that they decide to take violent revenge? Especially in a community that idolizes another guy who killed a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any sex? This is like having a KKK member kill some black people after making a video about how black people are evil, and then trying to claim that it had nothing to do with racism.

 daedalus wrote:
Case in point, I make more and am listed as a senior QA person at work while the woman (with experience, who even helped me get the damned position to begin with) is only a "regular" QA person at work, and she has the experience, and in all honesty is probably better at what we do than I am. I'm a guy though, and "should" make more than she does. Honestly, I disagree, but this is a flawed world with bad things happening at all bad circumstances. I don't know the difference in bands, but it's at least 6-10k. It's substantial.

Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.

If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.

I... I don't even.

This is starting to be a parody right? Aston Kucher is going to come into the thread and yell "Punked" soon right?

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh FFS, do your really not understand the difference between an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry and a consistent pattern of reinforcing an ideology that leads fairly easily to murder?

Say what? This was an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry. Being mad because you can't get a date and don't understand what human women want because you're an austistic headcase is not an ideology.

This shooting didn't happen in isolation, the guy was involved in a community that strongly believes that men are entitled to get sex from women if they follow all of the rules, feminism is evil because it lets women say no, and anyone who ever says no to you is a heartless who doesn't value "nice guys" enough. Is it really a surprise that when someone keeps hearing "women are your enemy, they're abusing you" that they decide to take violent revenge? Especially in a community that idolizes another guy who killed a bunch of women because he wasn't getting any sex? This is like having a KKK member kill some black people after making a video about how black people are evil, and then trying to claim that it had nothing to do with racism.

Here, read this dose of sanity.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
That is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that women are not excluded from the upper tiers of elite wealth despite seeming to be excluded from the most elite positions. And yes, for most intents and purposes, being married to a powerful executive is the same thing as being a powerful executive. You have the same quality of life, the same health care access, the same social protections from crime and hardship, the same freedom of movement and access to elite halls of power.

If economic power was the same thing as economic wealth you'd have a point.

But in the real world, when a man is hashing out in the boardroom whether they have the scope to expand their factory and employ a hundred more people, his wife is picking out a new bedspread for the master bedroom.

Having economic power resting almost entirely in the hands of just one gender is not a healthy thing, even if the other gender can marry one of the powerful people and experience the nice stuff like big houses.

The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not.

You really did all that work in women's studies and you never learnt that the 'traditional' man and wife split is actually a product of the industrial age?

With women graduating college at higher rates and going into politics and business at higher rates, all those fields will eventually change.

Not really, no. If that were true then we'd see steadily raising rates of women at the higher tiers of power, but they've mostly stagnated, and even declined in some places in the last decade.

Now, I don't think the effect is entirely institutional, the realities of which party overwhelming takes on the primary child raising role, as well as really ambitious women being somewhat rarer than really ambitious men accounts for a lot of the impact. But institutional factors play a huge role as well.

I thought you quit this thread, anyway?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.

Yeah, and it's the easiest thing in the world to prove and taking it through the courts won't ever doom any career ever. I mean come on.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Say what? This was an isolated incident of someone being murderously angry.

Yeah, an "isolated incident" where the killer just happens to quote PUA/MRA ideology as justification for their murders. And let's not forget that this is a community that considers a similar murderer a hero and a martyr.

Being mad because you can't get a date and don't understand what human women want because you're an austistic headcase is not an ideology.

No, it's absolutely an ideology. The PUA/MRA community explicitly says that you should blame women if you're a "nice guy" and you still don't get sex. The only difference is this guy took that entitled attitude to a murderous extreme, while most people in those communities just post angry rants about how feminists are evil because they allow women to say no.

Here, read this dose of sanity.

I don't see what your point is here. Yes, he had other influences, and I'm sure people disagreed with his extremism. But that doesn't change the fact that his own justification for his actions is taken straight from PUA/MRA ideology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.

And, if that's the case, could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that society discourages women from having career ambitions or anything that would make them appear "too aggressive"?

If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.

Despite your absurd assumption that there's no equality problem as long as the law says so unequal pay is not exactly easy to prove. In fact, a fundamental part of the income inequality problem is that ignoring the law is tolerated, and even expected.

I have things to say to you, Commisar, but Perigrine and Sebster are doing a fine enough job of talking on this subject intellegently.

 sebster wrote:
Having economic power resting almost entirely in the hands of just one gender is not a healthy thing, even if the other gender can marry one of the powerful people and experience the nice stuff like big houses.

I'm not defending it.

The reality is that women haven't really made major efforts to get involved in politics and business. The very idea of women pursuing careers is a huge change from previous generations, and while many women did decide to pursue careers back in the 70s, many more did not.

You really did all that work in women's studies and you never learnt that the 'traditional' man and wife split is actually a product of the industrial age?

 Jihadin wrote:
I know its a running joke in Afghanistan now...

1 "You alright troop?"
2 "Negative Sargeant."
1 "Your hand not in a caste so just change it up and use the other and pretend she or he is new to it."
2 "That's not.."
1 "Clean your damn weapon afterwards to."
2 "But..."
1 "Drink water to"
2 "But"
1 "Clean the 240 to"

Can you explain the joke? I'm pretty sure its about the military not noticing problems with the troops/PTSD.....but I'm not certain.....

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't see what your point is here. Yes, he had other influences, and I'm sure people disagreed with his extremism. But that doesn't change the fact that his own justification for his actions is taken straight from PUA/MRA ideology.

So feminism is to blame for Valerie Solanas shooting Andy Warhol then? Because her justifications were taken straight from feminist ideology, but we generally dismiss her as mentally disturbed. More seriously, it's disingenuous to call pick-up artists an ideology, since pick up artists aren't political in the slightest. And MRAs, in my experience, are mostly concern with how men get screwed in divorce and custody case.

You're completely misrepresenting the MRA community and the PUA community, which are two entirely different groups, and demonizing them because they are feminist's current boogeyman.

 friendlycommissar wrote:
Sounds like she screwed herself when she helped you get a job over her, rather than applying for it herself.

And, if that's the case, could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that society discourages women from having career ambitions or anything that would make them appear "too aggressive"?

Society doesn't discourage women. Society encourages men. Mostly by heaping tremendous abuse on any man who doesn't strive to succeed. If you want women to be as competetive as men, then encourage young girls to beat up and humiliate girls who are fat and slow and dumb. Make it clear that women will be measured entirely by their success, and will be written off as useless losers whose suffering is a joke for others if they fail. Make failure hurt, and women will take more risks, be more daring, try harder. But as long as women are protected from harsh realities, and allowed to take the easy route of marrying to maintain social class and defining themselves as mothers, then they will always be "discouraged" from fighting to be king of the hill.

If she is actually doing the same job as you, and being paid less because she's a woman, then that's actually illegal and if she has proof she can sue. Amazing how that works.

Despite your absurd assumption that there's no equality problem as long as the law says so unequal pay is not exactly easy to prove. In fact, a fundamental part of the income inequality problem is that ignoring the law is tolerated, and even expected.

Ah, yes, the "We can't find any evidence of this happening, which proves its happening!" argument. It's amazing how arguing with feminists is often so much like arguing with conspiracy theorists.

Who here thinks gun control laws should be in place to stop people like this guy from acquiring one, along with the knowledge to use one properly?
Who here also thinks that firearms should be not be made illegal to civilian use, in case we need to use them, such as in situations like these?
Who here thinks stores and most buildings should have firearms in a box behind breakable glass, monitored at all times with an alarm that goes off should someone need to use such a firearm?
I think we are too strict with gun control laws. I also think our laws are too loose when it comes to people buying guns.