@ #notallmen >=[

[eclipse]

This IS a tricky subject, but the amount of emotions flaring is a lot less than what I expected. Lemme see if I can put my sentiment into something coherent. . .I'm using a Forbes article and a Washington Post as my main sources (since my local newspaper isn't so hot about things outside of the state), so I might miss some details.

From what I can see, he didn't have very many friends, despite his apparent material wealth. IMO, it looks like a socialization problem, and "not getting women" is a side-effect of that. I see a kid who didn't get what he wanted, and rather than work out the why, chose to listen to things that agreed with him, while demonizing anything that he disagreed with. I don't see a gender issue - I see someone who was mentally ill, had help, and refused it.

As for the people agreeing with him? I'd have to see the logic behind their agreement before I can say anything.

[Phoenix Wright]

seriously, who are these people agreeing with him? i have seen nothing that tries to back the dude up.

[Chiki]

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 knew you were ignorant about philosophy, but now you're acting as if you know psychology too? In psychology, you have a really bad habit of sweeping generalizations that are false when it comes to groups of people. Sorry, but you need some empirical evidence to back these points up.

This post is even more horrific. I like how you put most nice guys under the same category of "manipulative narcissists."

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.

It doesn't matter who has the gun. Anyone can make a mistake that costs a life, and anyone who owns a gun is pretty irresponsible. We need to limit these accidents as much as possible.

Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms.

In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki

[Makaze]

I knew you were ignorant about philosophy, but now you're acting as if you know psychology too? In psychology, you have a really bad habit of sweeping generalizations that are false when it comes to groups of people. Sorry, but you need some empirical evidence to back these points up.

This post is even more horrific. I like how you put most nice guys under the same category of "manipulative narcissists."

It doesn't matter who has the gun. Anyone can make a mistake that costs a life, and anyone who owns a gun is pretty irresponsible.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my posts here. They are not debate posts. They are discussion posts meant to prod people into empathy.

If you have a particular problem with what I said or the intent behind it, please address them. Empirical evidence is not needed for what I intended to do.

[dondon151]

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

oh, good, but my point still stands. i will echo esau here, with a slight difference: i am not going to apologize for being truthful. if a woman, through her personal experiences, is firmly set in the opinion that all men are vile garbage despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, then that is her problem, not mine. god forbid i should say anything if a neutral phrase such as "not all men [are assholes, etc.]" is considered insensitive! what an odd perversion of political correctness this is.

[Makaze]

oh, good, but my point still stands. i will echo esau here, with a slight difference: i am not going to apologize for being truthful. if a woman, through her personal experiences, is firmly set in the opinion that all men are vile garbage despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, then that is her problem, not mine. god forbid i should say anything if a neutral phrase such as "not all men [are assholes, etc.]" is considered insensitive! what an odd perversion of political correctness this is.

Actually, it is your problem if you don't care about other people being intimidated into that mindset over a lifetime.

[dondon151]

Actually, it is your problem if you don't care about other people being intimidated into that mindset over a lifetime.

i don't care enough to be mute, no. but i do care.

[Makaze]

i don't care enough to be mute, no. but i do care.

Do you care enough to change your approach? How could you better take their pain into account? What is the best way to show them that they are wrong? What is the best time?

If you find yourself blurting out a correction as soon as someone says something stupid, you are probably being too trigger happy to help them.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

Do you care enough to change your approach? How could you better take their pain into account? What is the best way to show them that they are wrong? What is the best time?

again, why is it my problem that a neutral statement is perceived by some people to be offensive? any statement can be perceived as offensive as long as someone is looking to take offense. the notion of having to censor myself to take into account such a possibility is absurd.

If you find yourself blurting out a correction as soon as someone says something stupid, you are probably being too trigger happy to help them.

please explain why is it that the metric of care is how euphemistically i can contort my opinion. i voice my opinion because i care about other people having harmful opinions, not because i have a need to be right (a need which you so readily, and conceitedly, assume that i, and other members of this forum, have - another example of why you need to listen to your own advice).

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

I'm afraid you missed the point of my posts here. They are not debate posts. They are discussion posts meant to prod people into empathy.

If you have a particular problem with what I said or the intent behind it, please address them. Empirical evidence is not needed for what I intended to do.

If you want to "prod people into empathy," tell them what's true. Don't feed them your personal opinions that have nothing to do with reality.

[Makaze]

again, why is it my problem that a neutral statement is perceived by some people to be offensive? any statement can be perceived as offensive as long as someone is looking to take offense. the notion of having to censor myself to take into account such a possibility is absurd.

please explain why is it that the metric of care is how euphemistically i can contort my opinion. i can, and will, assert just the converse - if you don't think that these people are capable of handling a neutral statement, then you don't care about them.

It is your problem because of why you speak. If you do not speak to get them to truly understand your point, then you must be doing it for the sake of correction.

Correcting when you know it will cause harm makes you an asshole.

If you do speak to help them, then you can only control how you speak, not how they take it. You have to do this because if you don't get what you want, that's exactly what happened: you failed to get what you wanted. You and you alone are responsible for refusing to change. You have a responsibility to your own wish to succeed to do anything necessary to get the result you want. Blaming others because the method you like didn't have the results you wanted is not going to make it happen any faster.

You cannot argue that because caring does not equate to overlooking their flaws or pretending they don't exist. If you care, you have to cater to those flaws until you can fix them. You have a responsibility to find out what they are so that you can start this process, too.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

more pop psychology bullshit of the basest kind:

It is your problem because of why you speak. If you do not speak to get them to truly understand your point, then you must be doing it for the sake of correction.

you presume to know that i voice my opinion because i get off on being correct.

Correcting when you know it will cause harm makes you an asshole.

you presume to know that i voice my opinion for the express purpose of hurting others.

You cannot argue that because caring does not equate to overlooking their flaws or pretending they don't exist. If you care, you have to cater to those flaws until you can fix them. You have a responsibility to find out what they are so that you can start this process, too.

you presume to know that i don't care about opposing viewpoints because i don't water down a perfectly harmless, neutral statement in order to avoid offending very few people.

here's the problem: you are operating on the premise that i don't care about an offended party if i don't do x, y, or z, with absolutely zero justification for why that is so. i can, and will, assert the converse (with, i admit, a similar lack of evidence): you don't care about an offended party if you think that they are so incapable of handling a neutral truth that you have to feed them honeyed half-lies to sustain their delusions. i am not that arrogant.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Makaze]

Are you serious? You are free to actively deny what I said if you believe it is untrue. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake Chiki was. I am not debating. I am not here to "prove" that your behavior is bad for the sake of argument. I am here to get you to personally make better decisions in the future.

here's the problem: you are operating on the premise that i don't care about an offended party if i don't do x, y, or z, with absolutely zero justification for why that is so. i can, and will, assert the converse (with, i admit, a similar lack of evidence): you don't care about an offended party if you think that they are so incapable of handling a neutral truth that you have to feed them honeyed half-lies to sustain their delusions. i am not that arrogant.

I am not operating on that premise. In reality, it doesn't matter how you feel. If you know you may do harm and do the action anyway, the statement stops being neutral. That's what the knowledge adds. Not caring that it causes the harm is an assholeish thing to do even if you do not feel the emotion called malice.

The italic part is simply false. To deny that people who cannot take the blunt truth exist is both naïve and delusional. You have seen, first hand, that many do not take it well. Even so, you continue to address the very same individuals with the same approach. To not learn from these mistakes is a sign of some kind of flaw on your end.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

Are you serious? You are free to actively deny what I said if you believe it is untrue. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake Chiki was. I am not debating. I am not here to "prove" that your behavior is bad for the sake of argument. I am here to get you to personally make better decisions in the future.

some purported remedies are ineffectual, but others are actually toxic. out with you, snake oil salesman!

The italic part is simply false. To deny that people who cannot take the blunt truth exist is both naïve and delusional of you precisely because you have seen, first hand, that they do not take it well. To not learn from these mistakes is a sign of some kind of flaw on your end.

serious discussion does not get anywhere if i have to be vigilant about stooping to the lowest common denominator. your priorities are seriously messed up.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Makaze]

some purported remedies are ineffectual, but others are actually toxic. out with you, snake oil salesman!

serious discussion does not get anywhere if i have to be vigilant about stooping to the lowest common denominator. your priorities are seriously messed up.

So you go back to being entitled and disregarding people who are not like you.

I rest my case.

[dondon151]

So you go back to being entitled and disregarding people who are not like you.

I rest my case.

i am not petty enough to be the first to call out someone for being elitist. take a good look at yourself before you do so, thanks.

EDIT: i thought that first statement was a clever way to imply that you are not actually helping me, or anyone, "make better decisions in the future," but that your advice is more conducive to making worse decisions because it encourages others to unnecessarily handle their opinions with kid gloves. it has nothing to do with being entitled and disregarding you, per se.

EDIT 2:

If you know you may do harm and do the action anyway, the statement stops being neutral.

i had addressed this already: people who are looking to take offense will take offense at anything. short of being completely mute or feigning agreement, it is impossible to make a neutral statement that "may do harm." your definition simply fails.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Makaze]

i had addressed this already: people who are looking to take offense will take offense at anything. short of being completely mute or feigning agreement, it is impossible to make a neutral statement that "may do harm." your definition simply fails.

Actually, it doesn't. You are missing a key possibility. It is possible that you suck at dealing with these people. It is possible that dealing with them in a way that does not offend them is easier for others than you. It is also possible it would be easy for you if you were open to changing your behavior.

If you do suck at it, it is best to be mute when you will not help. People who cannot speak without causing harm should not speak. Carefully analyze when speaking will be helpful and only speak at those times.

If you can speak without offending, you should do it. Speak bluntly when necessary; speak carefully when necessary. Minimize damage.

Consider these possibilities.

[dondon151]

If you can speak without offending, you should do it. Speak bluntly when necessary; speak carefully when necessary. Minimize damage.

i hate to reiterate myself, but we seem to be going in circles. people who are seeking to take offense will find offense. i cannot say anything substantial without offending someone. i can literally make a statement - any statement - about sexism, racism, or other similarly charged topics, and someone will be offended by it. "racism is gone." "racism exists." "racism might be a problem." "some people are racists." etc.

[Makaze]

i hate to reiterate myself, but we seem to be going in circles. people who are seeking to take offense will find offense. i cannot say anything substantial without offending someone. i can literally make a statement - any statement - about sexism, racism, or other similarly charged topics, and someone will be offended by it. "racism is gone." "racism exists." "racism might be a problem." "some people are racists." etc.

Two problems.

1. It is extremely likely they are not trying to find offense. Offense is involuntary. People do not choose to have emotions.

2. Even if they are looking to be offended intentionally, nothing changes. In a world where no one can speak without causing more good than bad, no one should speak! You are still charged with not causing harm. Causing more good than harm ought to be your first priority. If you gallivant around saying things that happen to be true to please yourself despite knowing that the world would be a better place if you stayed silent, you are an asshole. Don't speak up if you can't do good.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze

[dondon151]

1. It is extremely likely they are not trying to find offense. This is so improbable that I would say it were impossible practically speaking. Offense is involuntary. People do not choose to have emotions.

actually, that people can't choose to have emotions makes it more likely that they find offense in non-offensive statements. for example: i just need to speak in a chinese accent in order to make some chinese people feel offended. (i am, by the way, ethnically chinese.)

i had a discussion with a friend regarding an episode where a professor told an anecdote that somewhere involved the stereotype that asians are good at math. i thought it was harmless; he thought it was offensive. i suppose i should say that the statement "people who are seeking to take offense will find offense" does not use an active form of the verb "to seek."

EDIT: i am reminded of this humorous event that happened awhile ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

if this incident is any indication, i might have to be careful about using the word "niggardly" because some black people (and, most probably, non-black people) who don't know the meaning of the word might be offended. this is utterly stupid. i refuse to stoop to this level of ignorance.

2. Even if they are looking to be offended intentionally, nothing changes. In a world where no one can speak without causing more good than bad, no one should speak! You are still charged with not causing harm. Causing more good than harm ought to be your first priority. If you gallivant around saying things that happen to be true to please yourself despite knowing that the world would be a better place if you stayed silent, you are an asshole. Don't speak up if you can't do good.

being truthful at the cost of an offended fringe is doing far more good than harm. for one, i am affirming my right to freedom of expression.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Esau of Isaac]

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.

Assuming that people have not been raped or abused by men in the past is not wrong to make. What kind of a person would assume that of everyone they meet? That's a horrible position to take. I am not obligated to instantly consider the feelings of everyone that's being an asshole to me, people aren't morally excused from people reacting to them after saying awful things simply because something bad happened in the past. I said that I do my best to be help others, that doesn't mean I am going to kowtow to someone making insane claims and likening me to a rapist simply because they have a warped and paranoid opinion after being abused. If that's insensitive of me then I guess I just have to be a dick, but no, I am not going to tolerate being told I am a rapist or a murderer because I am a man. Period.

It doesn't matter who has the gun. Anyone can make a mistake that costs a life, and anyone who owns a gun is pretty irresponsible. We need to limit these accidents as much as possible.

With respect to the statistics you raise, it's a specious argument to make that because 800 child deaths occurred over the course of a decade, any one of the millions upon millions of gun owners are categorically irresponsible. That is rather like saying that because people die from being mauled by dogs that owning dogs is indefensible.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Esau of Isaac

[dondon151]

With respect to the statistics you raise, it's a specious argument to make that because 800 child deaths occurred over the course of a decade, any one of the millions upon millions of gun owners are categorically irresponsible. That is rather like saying that because people die from being mauled by dogs that owning dogs is indefensible.

the argument is incomplete. i would argue that owning a dog is far more beneficial than owning a handgun, so an argument against handgun ownership is not on the same level as an argument against dog ownership. if you wish to take it further, automobiles cause a huge amount of involuntary deaths, but their utility is so great that it would be futile to argue outlawing them.

i mean, suppose that instead of owning a gun, every family owned a massive dose of heroin. the state of owning that massive dose of heroin is intrinsically more dangerous than not owning the dose of heroin, and i think that chiki would say that owning a massive dose of heroin is irresponsible because of the high risk and low benefit it entails.

Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151

[Chiki]

With respect to the statistics you raise, it's a specious argument to make that because 800 child deaths occurred over the course of a decade, any one of the millions upon millions of gun owners are categorically irresponsible. That is rather like saying that because people die from being mauled by dogs that owning dogs is indefensible.

There's a disanalogy because dogs are pets which make people happy without any sort of cost. Guns don't do anything except hurt and kill people and other animals.

Someone might argue that guns make people happy because people enjoy hunting, but that's a pretty horrific kind of pleasure to partake in.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki

[Esau of Isaac]

There's a disanalogy because dogs are pets which make people happy without any sort of cost. Guns don't do anything except hurt and kill people and other animals.

Do you think the only thing I use my gun for is to hurt people and kill other animals? Do you think that is why I bought it?

Please, go on. Tell me what things anyone can possibly derive pleasure from and why.

[Chiki]

Do you think the only thing I use my gun for is to hurt people and kill other animals? Do you think that is why I bought it?

Please, go on. Tell me what things anyone can possibly derive pleasure from and why.

Target practice? Lol. No one can rationally compare the pleasure of owning and spending time with a dog to target practice.