What do you expect from someone who thinks a murderous tyrant like Duterte is an admirable human being? Executions do not prevent crime.

On top of which, the fucking opioid epidemic has nothing to do with drug dealers like Pablo Escobar! The opioid epidemic is a problem with our medical community and legal, professional drug makers! If Trump is linking these two, he's talking about executing your local pharmacist and the CEOs of the company that make the pills.

Oh, I'm not at all surprised. And you're right about the opiod crisis being perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Though, I expect Trump to support the execution of people who simply supply weed. Unbelievable. And his idiot followers will continue with their "'Murica is the freest country in the world, WOOOO!!!!1" bullshit.

This is a perfect example of why government surveillance is a terrible idea. People are always saying, "IF YOU AREN'T DOING ANYTHING WRONG, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT." What's next -- executing doctors who perform abortions? I have no doubt that's next on the idiot's agenda.

This is absolutely absurd. You do know that some people legitimately carry a gun for self-defense, right?

Ya know, if guns were proven to make people safer, you insurance rates should go down when you buy one for the purpose of self-defense. However, the opposite happens, because it is statistically more likely for you to shoot yourself or a loved one than to actually defend yourself from an attacker with it.

The USA is not the Wild West anymore. People shouldn't be carrying around guns expecting to gun someone down like it was a normal thing. Besides, aren't there any less fucking lethal self-defense methods out there? Like tasers, or mace?

I wasn't really arguing for the effectiveness of carrying a gun for self-defense, I was mostly just pointing out that the quoted statement is almost cartoonishly ridiculous.

You've obviously never been to a really large American city.

I have. It isn't the wild west. I have further verified this through hundreds of hours of playing Fallout: New Vegas.

What is that supposed to mean


lol

How can one read an entire post, miss one of the most crucial points of it, and then act self-righteous by thinking they are pointing out an absurdity?

Carrying a gun in self defense or carrying a gun for assassination is irrelevant to my point. The former can be interpreted as moral while the latter as immoral but no matter which action one takes, a gun is a gun. It is really sad that I would have to outline this again, but here goes:

A GUN IS AN OBJECT THAT IS DESIGNED FOR ONE PURPOSE AND NOTHING ELSE, AND THAT IS TO MAIM/KILL WHATEVER IT IS FIRED AT.

A gun does not serve any other function that that. Ever washed your car with a gun? How about mow your lawn? Brew coffee? Type an essay? Replace your amp? Substitute for a treadmill? Hung a door? Built an engine?

No. A gun has but one purpose and that is to destroy. NOTHING that exists for the sole purpose of destruction can be seen as anything but inherently destructive. To debate that point after it has been spelled out in detail would make the person arguing against it STUPID.

Then factoring in that the item is not just inherently destructive but is currently the weapon of choice for people committing mass murder, to debate the very purpose behind a guns existence in the wake of these tragedies would make the person an ASSHOLE. Thus...

A STUPID ASSHOLE!

Getting safer by accidentally circumcising myself via .45 ACP

There's really nothing safe about guns. The chance of fucking up is large, even with training, and even then it'd make you more of a target.

To add to this, comedian Michael Ian Black (comedians being the most rational people in our country these days, apparently) wrote an editorial I'd dare say borders on brilliant when looking at the problem of gun violence in this country, and it falls largely--and relates to my list up there--on what the hell is happening to the boys in this country.

Very much worth a read.

I think this quote does a great summary:



I'm sure some worthless, basement-dwelling assholes would read this and instantly proclaim that we need to stop feminism, but we should stop listening to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh types in general. I think he makes good points that we (as society) have done a lot to help women transition to a stronger position in society, which benefits everyone. But that we need to change the way we deal with boys, because the old ways are not beneficial, and it seems to trickle down to some of them in the worst possible ways.

Bold is not surprising. Humor is rooted in pain, its transcendent quality is ideal for recovery and healing. Speaking of comedians hitting the nail squarely on the head, Bill Maher did a segment on the New Rules portion of his show about the perpetrators of school shootings. Pointing out the striking parallels between every single one of the shooters. It was quite interesting to say the least...

Trump goes uber Michael Bloomberg on gun owners. Kushner loses security clearance. Thirty other WH staffers lose security clearance. Hicks turns in resignation notice.

Man, these last 48 hours have been some of this administration's most chaotic 48 hours ever.

I have a theory that many, if not all, of these mass shooters are people who can't get laid. Prostitution should be legalized, as well as weed. Then these people would finally chill the fuck out.

I think this falls under the "well, you're not wrong" category, where it's not necessarily a correct solution, but it's not incorrect, either. Indeed, it ties in well with Michael Ian Black's points that "there is something wrong with our boys," because when these young men are only taught grossly out-dated ways of dealing with the world and women, they have little remaining choice but to end up lost in the fringes, frustrated, angry, and monstrous. A pinnacle, almost by-the-numbers example was Eliot Rodger, who left YouTube diatribes about how frustrated he was at never being able to get laid, hating happy couples, hating women, having clearly violent fantasies about women (which he attempted to act upon), racism (despite being mixed race), and a general feeling of being a useless, powerless outcast.

Rodger had clearly outdated ideals when it came to masculinity and women. He was a died-in-the-wool "nice guy" who would talk about how "fucking great he'd be for any woman" if they "weren't all a bunch of stupid stuck-up cunts too busy with black guy assholes" to notice him.

But, I'd say these are more symptoms than anything else. They are not a sole reason these guys decide shooting up a bunch of strangers is a solution to a problem. Rodger is also a prime example muddying the waters of the "mental disorder" issue. He had prescriptions, but the prescriptions didn't seem to curb his feelings of inadequacy, nor was he taking them. Gun culture in the US gives these broken people tools to enact horrors. And the way media latches onto these events gives them a sense of power and attention, where life--in their view--gives them little else.

How do we reach these people? Hard to say. I don't know what broke me out of being a "nice guy," and I don't have any fix-all solution.

This is one of my theories for why the alt-right is so prominent. A lot of guys wondering why girls don't like them getting suckered into the whole negging/pickup artist culture that transitions to them finding scapegoats in feminist ideology and wider minority acceptance. It's a little on the hyperbole side and obviously doesn't match everybody's narrative, but it was the chain of events that got a formerly close friend/bandmate into that line of thinking. I was one of those "nice guy" little shits when I was a teenager so I'm fairly certain there's an alternate universe where I ended up alt-right because I didn't know how to talk to girls.

I read an interesting article the other day which explained that the lack of a father figure is a strong factor in these shootings. Of the 27 worst mass shootings in American history, 26 were committed by males who weren't raised by their biological father. Boys without a father figure in their lives are prone to crime in general (5x more likely to live in poverty, 9x more likely to drop out of school, 20x more likely to end up in prison). There's obviously a trend in developmental problems, which may extend to problems socializing with their peers.

I was also a "nice guy" fuckface when I was a teenager. Why? Because I was an immature idiot with a shallow understanding of how relationships with the opposite sex work. My logic was that if I did X, then Y would happen, which would eventually lead to Z, thus a girlfriend. As things never turned out that way, obviously, I continuously felt terribly disappointed, wondering if there was anything wrong with me. With time, advice from trusted people and a lot of introspection, I came to the logical realization that women aren't math problems, and that human relationships are a hell of a lot more complex than that, which put me on a different track. Mind you, I'm still not in a long-term relationship, but my self-image is much better and don't actually struggle to get a date.

The key point here, I think,is the fact that I never thought there was something wrong with women for not dating me. My disappointment and frustration were always directed at myself, which I think helped to lead me on the aforementioned path of self-critique. I never sought any scapegoats, and always thought badly of guys who blamed women for not paying attention to them.

It's definitely a common thing among the alt-right but that's still an oversimplification.

Plenty of alt-right/neo-nazis/misogynists/etc. are happily married, with daughters and all. Never forget that.

Toxic masculinity is the problem, not just "not getting laid".


Did you read that on Fox News

Patheos, linked from RealClearPolitics, if you must know...?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/ ... 35596.html

Edit: though I suppose it is an opinion piece that responds to a Fox News article, now that I re-read it.

I get the feeling that putting the term "nice guy" in quotes, is meant to imply that the guy is not actually nice at all. But I have no idea what it's getting at, and would like someone to please explain the difference.

Pretty much exactly that. "Nice guys" are dudes who think that, because they treat women decently, they're entitled to sex, and that it's women's fault that they don't get laid.

Mind you, even at the peak of my "nice guy" asshattery I never believed women owed me their vaginas. I was an idiot, not an asshole.

I think that's extremely problematic, and has less to do with a lack of "father figure" than it does in some of the stress associated with a broken home, and growing up with parents fighting one another in varying capacities. After all, children raised by lesbians fare just fine, and there doesn't appear to be evidence that lacking the "father figure" works against the upbringing of the children. In American society, children are often defaulted to the mother, which is a problem that has been slowly improving, but still a long way from perfect.

This creates a single-parent home where a mother has complete power, the father is left to the mercy of the state, and the child risks growing up with warped views on the genders and rights. In this case, growing up male, seeing their mother empowered and father "emasculated" by the state likely helps feed into this destructive behavior we've discussed. Where we have a generation of boys that don't know how to be men in an ever-changing society.

A "nice guy" is an asshole that can't get dates or laid. They see themselves as "such nice guys", and cannot understand why women "always date assholes" instead of "the nice guys." The irony hits hard because these are often not nice people. The guy I mentioned before, Eliot Rodgers, was once such a dickweed. Lacking any semblance of self-awareness, he would rant about how he would be the best boyfriend in the world to any woman, and then denounce women as a bunch of stupid bitches for being too stupid to realize what a fucking great guy he is.

See a bit more here: Nice Guy

Eliot Rodger focused all his time and energy on hating people. He hated women for not fucking him. He hated black guys for fucking white women. He hated couples for having the happiness he deserved, and yes he truly felt he was owed sex and happiness. He built his life around the most superficial bullshit in an attempt to get laid. He had an expensive car, expensive clothes, walked around with a sense of entitlement, looked down his nose at people. You know, all the things women really want in a lay. For him, women were a prize, not a partner or a companion or a friend. They were an object. And he justified his intense hostility because he said that if they'd just fuck him, he'd be just the nicest guy there is.

I don't know any magic secret to talking to women, but I'm pretty sure that once I got over my attitude similar to this, things in general got a lot better.

Now, as this seems to be veering off-course, here's how this shit matters in the Trumpian context. These marginalized, hateful, anti-woman, racist, powerless, angry, "marginalized", lost people tend to congregate in all the same clusters. They are GamerGaters. They are Neo-Nazis. They are Men's Rights assholes. Their circles merge and swirl together, and they believed Trump was one of them. This is toxic masculinity taken to a horrifying level. It is fed by these fringe groups, it is empowered by gun culture as a way to "take back" imagined entitlements. Everyone else is the problem, not them. And everyone loses ground.

Ugh. I have a "friend" (we hardly hang out anymore) who is a white knight/"nice guy". He has given this one girl literally THOUSANDS of dollars in hopes of getting laid, despite me and several other people telling him to knock it the fuck off. People like that are unstable and legitimately creep me out. His entire self-worth is based on his ability to get a woman, and it's obvious that he doesn't give a shit about having a relationship for normal reasons.

And they don't see the total incompatibility between seeing themselves as paragons of positive masculine virtues, while at the same time being pathetically dependent on women making the first move due to their inability to do so? Hmmm... I can't say it any better than Hank Hill:

Similarly, I know a guy who had previously identified himself as a "nice guy" and now he constantly whines about women and often makes misogynistic statements (among other things), complains constantly about stupid shit, and then wonders why no woman wants to touch his penis.

Damn! Who knew finding a photo of Xlxlx was so easy?

Wow, high school insults coming from FasterDisaster. Colour me un-fucking-surprised. Projecting, much?

Let's not turn this into personal attacks and fighting, eh!

Obviously. No issue like this could be understood if scaled back to a gross oversimplification. It is simply too complex to also be contrived. It is one of many factors, but it appears to be not just one factor but a significant one.
That guy was a maniac, sorry and I do not think blaming the framework and constructs of society for his actions is beneficial. Whatever effect they may have had, nothing was going to stop what was happening.
- Could it not be that even if his luck with others suddenly changed, something else may have "triggered" his self-pity behavior? Maybe he was just a psychopath and if he had been able to brand those "desires" into his 40's - clearly on a psychological path of insanity - then he may have become an elusive serial killer who did even worse then what happened.

Then some responsibility towards leverage could be levied at his family dynamic, possible religious involvement, but could never be outright blamed for his actions. Besides, what kind of male is "good" for an ambitious heterosexual female? Every man has failed to be a saint to his woman over time in some way, as has every woman to her man. The only females who are enticed by "how fucking great he is" are maybe empty headed teenagers.
- He points out that he was still virginal despite being in college, which shows he equated college to sex, entirely missing the point of attendance. Not only are the female in college, mostly, NOT empty headed teens but young woman, they are looking for more than someone still charged with hormones would be able to offer.

He clearly had a mental illness, all of these murderers do. There is a saying within detective investigation that goes, "One cannot be prosecuted until suspect X is first eliminated as such." You simply cannot move onto something else until something this pivotal is cleared, unless the new development is objectively more pivotal than before.

Nothing within the debate of owning a firearm can even be addressed until those supporting firearms can soundly refute the notion of what guns are manufactured for. If this subject was about a manufactured item that was being used to kill others but is made for a positive purpose, then the notion would not matter. Guns are manufactured to destroy whatever they are used on, that is their sole purpose. Any gun that you may personally own all the way back in time when firearms were first invented, every last gun ever made has been so for that one sole purpose.

Moreover, while it is a fact that a school shooter might still want to violate others, you cannot shoot someone unless you have a gun. So maybe they will go into school stabbings? Episodes that, while tragic, are guaranteed to have less victims and less occurrences.There really is no secret. Just be interesting, funny and engaging. If you are boring, humorless and unable to read the woman, why should she want you? Would you want you? Men often try too hard and overthink what to say when there really is something to be said for simply adding an extra aspect of carelessness. Someone can be interesting, funny, engaging but also carry a cavalier tone that makes leaving that person behind a lot easier. Maybe the reason Elliot Rodger whom you keep referencing was not "a catch" is because any self respecting woman could see how hard it would be to break from him if a separation was needed. Maybe he should have had the attitude of post-hypnosis Peter Gibbons in the film Office Space.

Is it bad that I instantly recognized the guy in that picture?

Here's my favorite video about him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t_Bs-8L4Mop

Davis Aurini! What a fucking turd that guy is. I love H.Bomberguy's shit.

I just had the unfortunate experience of finding out who Davis Aurini is. He's a "race realist"? You don't have to look too far to debunk that bullshit. This dude seems like the biggest insufferable asshole ever.

yeah i'm so mad yet so undeniably joyed that i now know who davis aurini is. dude is literally a cartoon villain it's amazing.

Holy moly, thanks for making me aware of this channel.

Found the self-loathing white guy! Whites are 77% of the population according to the Census (a figure that includes North Africans and some middle eastern immigrants) and commit 70% or 56% (depending on which definition you use) of the mass murders: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... phics.html

That statistic was initially brought out to counter GOP/white supremacist talking points about most violent crime being perpetrated by blacks. Interesting to know that the ratio is proportionate to general population, I guess?

Proportionately, blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. It's only mass murder where whites commit a roughly proportionate amount (again, depending on which definition of "mass murder" you use; only the old Mother Jones definition has whites commiting a mass murder proportionately, with their new definition [4 or more deaths, public place] having them commiting mass murder slightly less than proportionately, and the USA Today definition [4 or more deaths, no restriction on public vs. private location) having them commiting only 38% of mass murders]).