@ #notallmen >=[

[peener weener]

Knives game him a way to act on his insane motivations as well. Some people use guns to kill other people. I have a gun. Do you think I am going to kill people? Am I not to be trusted to own one? Do you trust a policing agency I can easily join to carry guns, but not me? Do you trust a military I can join today --criticized in this very forum by multiple members as behaving similarly to terrorists-- to arm themselves with guns, but not me? I agree that murderers should not get their hands on a gun, let alone any weapon, but how do you stop that from happening? How do you maintain security of that nature while maintaining fairness and rights for everyone?

How does bringing yourself or any of these entities up present a valid argument? I don't know if you're going to kill people. I don't fucking know you at all. I do now know that you own an instrument with which you could at any time very, very easily do so, because it was designed specifically for that purpose.

You stop that from happening by not making the acquisition of guns so fucking easy for everyone that walks on your fucking country.

Compared to other developed countries, the US has by far the largest gun ownership rate (actually, I believe this is true for the rest of the world as well) with a number as ridiculous as 0.9 per capita or something like that. Conversely, of the developed countries, it has the largest amount of violent gun crimes by a fairly wide margin. The social situation in the US is not comparable at all to that of, say, Brazil, Argentina, Honduras, etc. In a fairly stable society, it does not seem very intuitive that this would be the reality.

Also, school shootings are literally more common in the US than in the rest of the world, combined.

Please stop pretending there is absolutely no problem with the ridiculously lax gun control laws in the US. It's not just gonna happen oh welp.

What elephant? That some people are willing to take the ravings of a madman and apply them to an entire populace of millions of people?

Anyone who thinks there is a persistent culture that males deserve females' as sex toys is utterly misinformed. It boggles my mind that so many people are so utterly driven to see the world in such an ugly light. It's terrifying that this has become a relevant talking point, to me.

I emphatically disagree, and I think valuing his viewpoints as though they are held by any relevant part of the population is insulting to the utmost degree.

Not his exact viewpoint, no. This guy is an extremist. But the general sentiment is very much present in western society. I see it every day. From many people I know being called sluts and being cast out of social groups and harrassed endlessly because they have had multiple sexual partners (one had a fairly disturbing breakdown at one point), while I have literally never seen the inverse-- dudes being shamed for fucking a ton of bitches. I've been at parties where I've been approached by guys and threatened because I had previously been chatting with a girl they were "aiming for."

Stop being so hyperbolic.

I've noticed this behaviour on my own, and my opinion is not at all changed by the Internet or reactionary feminists. I've discussed this with people who basically don't use the Internet outside of social media at all and they agree they've observed it too. "Utterly misinformed" is bullshit.

Edited May 28, 2014 by fuccboi

[Esau of Isaac]

How does bringing yourself or any of these entities up present a valid argument? I don't know if you're going to kill people. I don't fucking know you at all. I do now know that you own an instrument with which you could at any time very, very easily do so, because it was designed specifically for that purpose.

You stop that from happening by not making the acquisition of guns so fucking easy for everyone that walks on your fucking country.

How? This is always raised by everyone after every event. What methodology do you propose to stop people like this man from getting a gun?

Please stop pretending there is absolutely no problem with the ridiculously lax gun control laws in the US. It's not just gonna happen oh welp.

I never said there is absolutely no problem. I didn't even say the problem wasn't small. I'm criticizing the circus that always parades itself around after the mass media latches onto these events, always with charged rhetoric but never with any valid methods to stop it. There's always this discussion about people causing harm with weapons, but never about when gun owners stop crimes from happening. There's always this notion that heavy gun legislation towards assault weapons is beneficial, when there's every indication that people involved have no clue what they're even doing. No, I don't think it's perfect. But I've never met anyone with a realistic solution, and I don't think I ever will.

Stop being so hyperbolic.

I'm not being hyperbolic. The public has latched onto this notion that because this crazy man killed women for rejecting his advances that all men think they own women. No I'm not going to argue with your personal experiences or any others', and I'm not going to stop rejecting this disgusting notion that it's common men think they innately deserve sex from women. Your daily life dictates it's a problem? Fine, I'm sorry that's how it is where you are. Mine says otherwise, and I'm not going to sit here and be told that as a male I am more likely to want to kill women for not sleeping with me.

[peener weener]

How? This is always raised by everyone after every event. What methodology do you propose to stop people like this man from getting a gun?

I don't claim to know a surefire way to solve the problem, although tighter regulations put in place on the acquisition of guns (ie extensive background checks, valid reason for owning weapons, etc.), and the recalling of firearms and expired licenses. Illegal acquisition of weapons is something I'm not too sure on how to tackle, though.

I never said there is absolutely no problem. I didn't even say the problem wasn't small. I'm criticizing the circus that always parades itself around after the mass media latches onto these events, always with charged rhetoric but never with any valid methods to stop it. There's always this discussion about people causing harm with weapons, but never about when gun owners stop crimes from happening. There's always this notion that heavy gun legislation towards assault weapons is beneficial, when there's every indication that people involved have no clue what they're even doing. No, I don't think it's perfect. But I've never met anyone with a realistic solution, and I don't think I ever will.

Reasonable.

I'm not being hyperbolic. The public has latched onto this notion that because this crazy man killed women for rejecting his advances that all men think they own women. No I'm not going to argue with your personal experiences or any others', and I'm not going to stop rejecting this disgusting notion that it's common men think they innately deserve sex from women. Your daily life dictates it's a problem? Fine, I'm sorry that's how it is where you are. Mine says otherwise, and I'm not going to sit here and be told that as a male I am more likely to want to kill women for not sleeping with me.

You say you aren't being hyperbolic and immediately follow it up by saying all this shit about people telling you you're more likely to be a murderer and claiming that all men think they own women, when all that was being discussed is that there are enough men who do that it constitutes a very real problem? I'm sorry you feel you are being personally attacked, but you aren't, not really.

[dondon151]

I never said there is absolutely no problem. I didn't even say the problem wasn't small. I'm criticizing the circus that always parades itself around after the mass media latches onto these events, always with charged rhetoric but never with any valid methods to stop it. There's always this discussion about people causing harm with weapons, but never about when gun owners stop crimes from happening. There's always this notion that heavy gun legislation towards assault weapons is beneficial, when there's every indication that people involved have no clue what they're even doing. No, I don't think it's perfect. But I've never met anyone with a realistic solution, and I don't think I ever will.

in your first posted link, the gun owners did not stop all of the crimes from happening. if you present those 9 cases as evidence that the second amendment (i.e., gun ownership) is effective at protecting people rather than harming people, then i'm not very convinced.

in your second posted link, i don't see the relevance. i don't need to know the anatomy of a gun in order to understand the statistics behind gun violence in the US.

the criterion of a "realistic solution" is, to my knowledge, a code phrase for rejection of any sort of gun legislation. it is so easy to assert, for example, that the US has a "gun culture" and that it's impossible to remove the guns, but that's not an actual argument. give gun legislation enough time and they will mostly be gone. so when anyone who argues against gun control cites a lack of "realistic solutions," i know that they've set up the opposing side for failure.

This dude did this because he felt entitled to women and angry and envious of the men who got the women he wanted. Theres a problem here because this guy got this idea from somewhere.

envy is natural and is not the problem. the problem is the sense of entitlement that a few men possess towards women.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Rehab]

People have sympathized with this guy's "plight," when, from what I've heard, he was rich enough to afford a BMW that my dad (an MBA and IT manager) wishes he could afford, and he was going to an expensive school on his parents' money. This guy had a ton of material advantage, and blamed women for not going out with him.

Clearly a total wacko, right? (whether literally diseased or just a total fuckhead (lest we forget, he was eloquent enough to convince an officer who visited him that he wasn't planning anything, when his postings clearly illustrated a fucked-up person))

And yet, he has not a small number of people sympathizing with him. (late edit: his views, not just his being possibly ill and ruining his own life/killing himself)

Are they all crazy too?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rehab

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't claim to know a surefire way to solve the problem, although tighter regulations put in place on the acquisition of guns (ie extensive background checks, valid reason for owning weapons, etc.), and the recalling of firearms and expired licenses. Illegal acquisition of weapons is something I'm not too sure on how to tackle, though.

But keep in mind that most of these already exist in most states, yet the prevalence of these shootings still persists. On paper I agree with many regulatory efforts, but in practice they generally just act as another bloated, inefficient waste of money harming citizens, without producing any tangible benefits. Some infamous killers such as James Holmes had acquired all of their firearms after extensive background checks, all legally.

I live in California, so for me I accept regulations like I do taxes; grudgingly. Nonetheless, California has the highest gun murders of anywhere else in the union, despite having less gun-ownership per capita than almost every other state. It's hard to say what to do, but what is being done and what is being proposed are certainly nowhere near as wildly effective as many politicians would have everyone believe.

You say you aren't being hyperbolic and immediately follow it up by saying all this shit about people telling you you're more likely to be a murderer and claiming that all men think they own women, when all that was being discussed is that there are enough men who do that it constitutes a very real problem? I'm sorry you feel you are being personally attacked, but you aren't, not really.

Once again, this is not hyperbolic. Misandrist tripe like this is becoming more and more common, all because the perpetrator was a misogynist. How do enough men kill women that won't have sex with them that this is a problem? I think it's seriously insulting, there's a difference between acknowledging that there's an inequality between the genders and another thing entirely to use a rampaging psycho as evidence of a persistent issue.

in your first posted link, the gun owners did not stop all of the crimes from happening. if you present those 9 cases don't as evidence that the second amendment is effective at protecting people rather than harming people, then i'm not very convinced.

It's evidence against the notion that guns are used solely in crime, which is how the media presents these issues. Preventative measures are not presented through the news.

in your second posted link, i don't see the relevance. i don't need to know the anatomy of a gun in order to understand the statistics behind gun violence in the US.

You do need to know what you're banning and what relevance it has on crime to create an effective regulatory body. The fact is that menacing-looking equipment is what is banned rather than what is most-commonly used.

Are you seriously defending a congresswoman signing a bill to ban something when she doesn't even know what it is? Do you know what a barrel shroud is? Or a pistol grip? Because if you do you'd understand that they have no bearing on gun crime in the slightest. Do you agree with legislators ham-handedly banning things without doing any research or bothering to read and understand what it is they are limiting everyone else from?

[Loki Laufeyson]

Regardless of the fact that I AM entitled to Scarlet Johansson, it seems like somewhere along the line I came across as actually using "not all men are like this guy" at some point. Because I haven't disagreed with you on a single point so far.

"Not all males belong to the group of douchebag men that dominate society, they are just as much a victim as everyone else."

Ah ha! I bet this is the little bastard of a sentence I railed off not realizing what it was implying!

I wasn't saying this in terms of how the meme is being tossed around, I promise. I was trying to illustrate what I've been saying in this thread about the beta-male stuff. I actually wasn't saying "not all men are this guy", but rather "the male dominated culture affects a subset of men in an awful, awful way".

I never meant to discourage the female part of the argument but rather bring up that, even in a male-dominated culture, many men suffer under the burden of "need wimminz y wimminz no like me". And I can sympathize with those guys, just not the potential misogynistic externalization of that pain. And all the other shit I brought up.

I'll chew on my foot for as long as you see fit before safely removing and never inserting "man problems" into a feminist argument.

EDIT: because i copy/paste quoted and you actually didn't say the thing that I said >.<

What is even this post? I didnt disagree with you, you are actually railing off because you think of yourself as the sole exception. Thats a pretty messed up way of looking at it. "BUT NOT ALL MEN" is a really weak argument when you get right down to it. It ignores the problem.

What elephant? That some people are willing to take the ravings of a madman and apply them to an entire populace of millions of people?

Anyone who thinks there is a persistent culture that males deserve females' as sex toys is utterly misinformed. It boggles my mind that so many people are so utterly driven to see the world in such an ugly light. It's terrifying that this has become a relevant talking point, to me.

Its pretty terrifying the amount of dismissal this topic generates.

[dondon151]

i think it's fine to both sympathize with and condemn this guy. they are not mutually exclusive feelings.

It's evidence against the notion that guns are used solely in crime, which is how the media presents these issues. Preventative measures are not presented through the news.

gun ownership is not an effective preventative measure if it failed to stop the gun crimes in the first place! look, it's great that some guy killed 3 and wounded 3 on a college campus instead of 10/10, but that's 6 people too many. should we give gun ownership credit that there weren't more casualties? or should we acknowledge that this has an extreme likelihood of having never happened in the first place had gun ownership not been so widespread?

the media is not being unfair towards guns if we as a society expect better outcomes in the first place. we shouldn't be commending gun ownership for inadequately solving (if you can even call it that) the problems that they caused.

You do need to know what you're banning and what relevance it has on crime to create an effective regulatory body. The fact is that menacing-looking equipment is what is banned rather than what is most-commonly used.

Are you seriously defending a congresswoman signing a bill to ban something when she doesn't even know what it is? Do you know what a barrel shroud is? Or a pistol grip? Because if you do you'd understand that they have no bearing on gun crime in the slightest. Do you agree with legislators ham-handedly banning things without doing any research or bothering to read and understand what it is they are limiting everyone else from?

just to be clear, i am not defending that congresswoman, but rather protesting against the common notion that people who aren't gun experts aren't qualified to legislate guns. i don't agree with the strategy of legislating gun paraphernalia that many gun control advocates pursue - it's hardly effective and a waste of time.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Moira]

Regardless of whether or not the guy is completely insane, the fact that there is so much sympathy for his "predicament" shows that its still a problem.

Honestly, I find it scary that "society's" views on women and the patriarchy could affect people so much. Like, do people not just think "you know, women are people and maybe not just here for my own personal enjoyment." It seems like such a stretch for people to come to that conclusion.

[jiodi]

Omigosh I was apologizing for coming across as one of those #notallmen guys, I promise!

I wasn't railing, I thought I must have come across as terribly ignorant and tried to rectify that. I wasn't arguing or anything.

Man I can't seem to not come off like a jackass, can I? :(

Edit: I don't consider myself the exception, far from it. It took my wife beating the stupid out of me to even realize I was part of the problem. I'm still shaking off a lot of the misogyny I didn't even realize I had.

Edit edit: yes misogyny is now a quantifiable value to be shaken off. Much like dust off your shoulders.

Edited May 28, 2014 by jiodi

[Rehab]

I sympathize with nobody knowing how your head works and not being able to explain it to them in a way that makes the least bit of sense. Empathize, even. I also sympathize with having pressure on one's head. But the guy's thoughts on women sound almost as poisonous as if he were the worst poster I've ever seen on 4chan. Are people sympathizing with his situation, his views, or both?

Actually, I should just bite the bullet and check. If I'm honest, I've been avoiding looking up anything he actually said because the little I've heard of him pushes almost all my buttons at once.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Rehab

[dondon151]

Regardless of whether or not the guy is completely insane, the fact that there is so much sympathy for his "predicament" shows that its still a problem.

that in itself is not a problem. i can sympathize with the envy that men feel towards other men with more successful sex lives. i'm also well aware that i'm by no means "entitled" to women just because i treat them like normal people.

Its pretty terrifying the amount of dismissal this topic generates.

i'm extremely confident when i say that you are misinterpreting esau. he is not saying that the problem doesn't exist. he is saying that the problem doesn't exist to the extent that the media is saying it does, and i'm more inclined to agree with his position.

[Esau of Isaac]

gun ownership is not an effective preventative measure if it failed to stop the gun crimes in the first place! look, it's great that some guy killed 3 and wounded 3 on a college campus instead of 10/10, but that's 6 people too many. should we give gun ownership credit that there weren't more casualties? or should we acknowledge that this has an extreme likelihood of having never happened in the first place had gun ownership not been so widespread?

There's no way to even quantify how many crimes are stopped entirely by the prevalence of law-abiding gun-ownership, so that's not really a fair position to take. Lamenting that the situation would be better if there had never been a gun is like lamenting that the situation would be better if there were just no murders. Yes, I get the point, and agree, but it's not a tenable position to support any actual efforts at crime reduction

the media is not being unfair towards guns if we as a society expect better outcomes in the first place. we shouldn't be commending gun ownership for inadequately solving (if you can even call it that) the problems that they caused.

The media is being entirely unfair by categorically refusing to report on events where they were an effective means of resisting aggressors. The portrayal of firearms in America is hysterical, equating their presence to heavy crime, which simply is not the case. I'm not saying anything about commending but creating a realistic portrayal of gun owners. The vast majority of guns that exist in America are not used in crime but held by law-abiding citizens, yet the way the media and by extension the public reacts it is as though the streets are filled with criminals just waiting to murder people. It's unfair.

just to be clear, i am not defending that congresswoman, but rather protesting against the common notion that people who aren't gun experts aren't qualified to legislate guns. i don't agree with the strategy of legislating gun paraphernalia that many gun control advocates pursue - it's hardly effective and a waste of time.

I'm not saying you have to be a gun expert to sign legislation with regard to guns, but anyone who represents us as legislators should be genuinely informed on what laws they are signing into effect. Assault weapon bans of past and present are not aimed at genuinely helping the community, and as a result of its inefficiency fuels both backlash from gun-owners who were already reticent to regulation and further fuels anti-gun rhetoric because of a perception that the efforts are too soft.

Its pretty terrifying the amount of dismissal this topic generates.

Alright, how about you tell me what you think needs to be done to stop events like this from happening. Don't be dismissive now, tell me the specifics since people like me just can't seem to grasp the answer.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[Moira]

that in itself is not a problem. i can sympathize with the envy that men feel towards other men with more successful sex lives. i'm also well aware that i'm by no means "entitled" to women just because i treat them like normal people.

I'm not talking about people who feel envious of other people for having sex. I thought it was apparent what I was talking about, the people with some sense of entitlement and many more nasty opinions.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Fluorspar

[dondon151]

The media is being entirely unfair by categorically refusing to report on events where they were an effective means of resisting aggressors. The portrayal of firearms in America is hysterical, equating their presence to heavy crime, which simply is not the case. I'm not saying anything about commending but creating a realistic portrayal of gun owners. The vast majority of guns that exist in America are not used in crime but held by law-abiding citizens, yet the way the media and by extension the public reacts it is as though the streets are filled with criminals just waiting to murder people. It's unfair.

the vast majority of muslims are friendly, peace-loving people, but don't let's pretend that islam is not problematic when it's so easy to pervert its doctrine into supporting entirely immoral actions. it's the same thing with gun ownership: we should be more aware of the negative aspects. the reason why we are more attuned to the threat of some fringe group of people is because those are the people who are interested in causing harm. there is little benefit to, for example, devoting equal air time to "crimes caused by guns" and "gun owners with normal lives," and the very premise of doing so is ludicrous.

it would be like if a news network did a report on MRSA and then balanced it out with a report on the e. coli that normally colonize your intestine and don't do you any harm.

EDIT: i can agree with your final (er, second-to-last after your edit) paragraph.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

the vast majority of muslims are friendly, peace-loving people, but don't let's pretend that islam is not problematic when it's so easy to pervert its doctrine into supporting entirely immoral actions. it's the same thing with gun ownership: we should be more aware of the negative aspects. the reason why we are more attuned to the threat of some fringe group of people is because those are the people who are interested in causing harm. there is little benefit to, for example, devoting equal air time to "crimes caused by guns" and "gun owners with normal lives," and the very premise of doing so is ludicrous.

it would be like if a news network did a report on MRSA and then balanced it out with a report on the e. coli that normally colonize your intestine and don't do you any harm.

EDIT: i can agree with your final (er, second-to-last after your edit) paragraph.

I realize that it's an unprofitable venture on their part, but there needs to be some measure to leave the populace well-educated on firearms in general. The way it stands, there's this prevalent view that guns=crime, and that's simply not so. I'm not saying I don't understand why news agencies report on crimes the way they do, certainly not that being aware of the dangers of guns is a bad thing. Just that people should be aware that guns can be a problem, but are not the problem. If that makes sense.

[Makaze]

This thread is going all over the place. Why is it going all over the place?

Disclaimer: I know little about this subject, but it should be closer to base anyway.

In order to understand why somebody might get upset over a phrase like "not all men", think about the context for the person who demonized all men.

Women are less privileged than men. Women face a lot of social stereotyping by men and other women alike as irrational and irresponsible. They are infantilized constantly. They are manipulated and looked down on by businessmen who see them as easy targets for their sales pitches. They get told not to go out at night alone. They get told not to wear attractive clothing. They get blamed very often for things done to them. There are large groups of people who shame them for exploring their sexualities, men and women alike. There is a hell of a lot of resentment towards men in this because they happen to be the primary perpetrators in cases where women are hurt and taken advantage of.

Women were killed. They were singled out for being women, by a man. A man who kills women for not having sex with him.

Many women, hurt as they are by their experiences, see this as an extreme example of the same thing that has been happening to them their whole lives. They know that sexist things are prevalent. They act out in anger due to their pain both at the past and at the tragedy that has just happened. They see as men as capable of the actions of this one. They are afraid. They have been made afraid by men their whole lives, and now one has gone and killed women because they were women. It is perfectly natural to generalize when your worst fears are realized.

You come into this situation and your first thought is, "I'm not like that! How dare they compare me to that psycho." Seriously? You are disregarding their entire experience and their pain because your pride was hurt for a couple of seconds. The insensitivity of these statements is astounding. When people overreact to pain, defending yourself is not the proper reaction. Trying to understand their pain and heal them, is.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[Esau of Isaac]

This thread is going all over the place. Why is it going all over the place?

Disclaimer: I know little about this subject, but it should be closer to base anyway.

In order to understand why somebody might get upset over a phrase like "not all men", think about the context for the person who demonized all men.

Women are less privileged than men. Women face a lot of social stereotyping by men and other women alike as irrational and irresponsible. They are infantilized constantly. They are manipulated and looked down on by businessmen who see them as easy targets for their sales pitches. They get told not to go out at night alone. They get told not to wear attractive clothing. They get blamed very often for things done to them. There are large groups of people who shame them for exploring their sexualities, men and women alike. There is a hell of a lot of resentment towards men in this because they happen to be the primary perpetrators in cases where women are hurt and taken advantage of.

Women were killed. They were singled out for being women, by a man. A man who kills women for not having sex with him.

Many women, hurt as they are by their experiences, see this as an extreme example of the same thing that has been happening to them their whole lives. They know that sexist things are prevalent. They act out in anger due to their pain both at the past and at the tragedy that has just happened. They see as men as capable of the actions of this one. They are afraid. They have been made afraid by men their whole lives, and now one has gone and killed women because they were women. It is perfectly natural to generalize when your worst fears are realized.

You come into this situation and your first thought is, "I'm not like that! How dare they compare me to that psycho." Seriously? You are disregarding their entire experience and their pain because your pride was hurt for a couple of seconds. The insensitivity of these statements is astounding. When people overreact to pain, defending yourself is not the proper reaction. Trying to understand their pain and heal them, is.

I don't have any problem with helping people heal. I am not going to let someone, however rotten their past, generalize millions of people over the actions of one man. Women were killed. And so were men. People were killed, and that's what matters. I am not going to be kind to a view that is invalid and harmful, regardless of the source.

I'm not disregarding their experiences by telling them they are wrong. I can understand them without defending viewpoints I know are false.

[Makaze]

I don't have any problem with helping people heal. I am not going to let someone, however rotten their past, generalize millions of people over the actions of one man. Women were killed. And so were men. People were killed, and that's what matters. I am not going to be kind to a view that is invalid and harmful, regardless of the source.

I'm not disregarding their experiences by telling them they are wrong. I can understand them without defending viewpoints I know are false.

Realizing that looking down on them for reacting badly perpetuates their perceptions is very important. When you correct their bad arguments without making them feel that you understand, you come off as if all you care about is correcting them. You came to tell them they were wrong and then you're done. That is disregarding their pain.

Timing and approach are paramount.

They are wrong. Their views are harmful. Even so, your correction only adds more pain. It helps no one. It comes from your own need to correct and pride. In many cases it does even more work to convince them of their position than if you did nothing at all.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

the amount of smug, feel-good pop psychology in that post is painful. you should learn to take your own advice, lol.

[Makaze]

If you do not have anything of value to add to any specific points, please do not post.

Edit: Actually... Not going to let that slide.

You just attempted to shame me without countering my argument. You clearly ignored any valid points I might have had. Your only thought was that it had pop psychology (whatever that is) in it, therefore it is invalid. This is exactly the kind of thing I meant.

Exactly what piece of advice am I supposed to be taking?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[Rehab]

If Makaze's post is pop-psychology, it's pop-psychology that sounds a lot like how many of the people I've seen who I imagine Esau and Makaze are talking about actually speak about their feelings and experiences. That is to say that they've been either directly hurt or intimidated for years, and an incident like this lights up fears and pain they've had for a long time, and responses that they feel don't give them anything to work with make it worse.

Some of them are stunningly cynical.

[Esau of Isaac]

Look, I don't know what to tell you, Makaze. If someone has been hurt in the past I have no way of knowing that. If they tell me they had a bad experience then I'll attempt to relate with them and help them. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however, and it doesn't challenge any of what I've said in the least. It sucks if someone feels pain at me telling them they're wrong, but it hurts equally to read accounts from people arguing that I am a probable rapist, murderer, or some other equally awful person because I am a man --as some hysterical fringe elements have stated in the past and are relating in the present. If they're speaking from paranoia over things that happened to them, that doesn't absolve them of their faulty argumentation or their similar lack of care for others.

I am not apologizing for being who I am because someone was hurt by someone that looked like me in the past.

[dondon151]

You just attempted to shame me without countering my argument. You clearly ignored any valid points I might have had. Your only thought was that it had pop psychology (whatever that is) in it, therefore it is invalid. This is exactly the kind of thing I meant.

Exactly what piece of advice am I supposed to be taking?

i'm sorry, but you had no valid points. you chastised esau with the same dripping haughtiness that you accused him of having. that is what i meant with taking your own advice. esau was pretty clear in qualifying his opinion; your remark about how he articulated it (complete with the assumption that he was being arrogant, insensitive, and conceited, none of which was obvious to me at all) was a non sequitur at best.

before you accuse me of a straw man:

"Realizing that looking down on them" implies arrogance.

"without making them feel that you understand," implies insensitivity.

"your own need to correct and pride." implies conceit.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Makaze]

Look, I don't know what to tell you, Makaze. If someone has been hurt in the past I have no way of knowing that. If they tell me they had a bad experience then I'll attempt to relate with them and help them. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about here, however, and it doesn't challenge any of what I've said in the least. It sucks if someone feels pain at me telling them they're wrong, but it hurts equally to read accounts from people arguing that I am a probable rapist, murderer, or some other equally awful person because I am a man --as some hysterical fringe elements have stated in the past and are relating in the present. If they're speaking from paranoia over things that happened to them, that doesn't absolve them of their faulty argumentation or their similar lack of care for others.

I am not apologizing for being who I am because someone was hurt by someone that looked like me in the past.

I'm not suggesting apologizing. I am suggesting that you can worry about healing your pain when it becomes harder to heal than the other side's.

Imagine being likened to a rapist and murderer and being treated as if you could be one your whole life and you might gain a little perspective. They have been dealing with these things their entire life. You had to deal with a few comments on the internet. When you equate your pain to theirs, it is... Highly insensitive and self-absorbed.

Your pain matters, but you are in less pain. In my opinion, that means you can be held to a higher standard than those you are hurting.

As much as I hate the phrase, what you are experiencing here is privilege. You think you are not obligated to consider their pain because you 'couldn't know'. Earlier, you said that you were fine with healing people and that understanding doesn't excuse bad behavior. Now you are saying that you shouldn't be expected to understand. You 'have no way of knowing that' because you assumed they had not been through it from the start! Let me break this down in case you don't think you assumed that: You could either assume that they have been through pain or assume they have not. Not assuming anything is the same as assuming they have not. You clearly have not assumed that they went through the pain, so it must be the latter.

That means that you have been disregarding their pain by assuming it doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

i'm sorry, but you had no valid points. you chastised esau with the same dripping haughtiness that you accused him of having. that is what i meant with taking your own advice. esau was pretty clear in qualifying his opinion; your remark about how he articulated it (complete with the assumption that he was being arrogant, insensitive, and conceited, none of which was obvious to me at all) was a non sequitur at best.

before you accuse me of a straw man:

"Realizing that looking down on them" implies arrogance.

"without making them feel that you understand," implies insensitivity.

"your own need to correct and pride." implies conceit.

You meant the response to Esau by itself? I see.

You misunderstood something vital. I was not critiquing his post. I was critiquing the attitude behind the phrase 'not all men'.

---

I think I do need to apologize for something. Especially now. dondon was wrong about the particular thing I was being hypocritical on, but I have been hypocritical because I have been pointing out the flaws in your behavior without trying to heal you.

I suppose what you can take from this is how it feels to have your emotional reactions criticized without empathy from the other side.

Edited May 28, 2014 by eclipse
Please don't double post!