Support NeoGAF

[Lovely Salsa]

Half of his victims were asian. hmm

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Just on this note, he had actually been seeing people at thirteen (and presumably had since then, but he only focuses on the various life coaches and passes over his experience with psychiatric services) so "not receiving help..." is probably a little too extreme, and "receiving inadequate help..." probably a little closer to the situation. I'm probably just being pedantic here though, and this could have been what you meant.

bolded parttttt correct.

(yea, i know he had actually opportunities, and even channels, to professional help)

 

[Ikael]

*snip*

This is an outsanding post, and what I have been trying to say all along. Congratulations for your contribution

It is not a question of downplaying / excusing / empatizing with mysoginia, but of trying to understand the inner processes that lead to it.

I do believe that as a general norm and not only exclusive to this case, the influence that the mainstream discourse attributes to external social factors over the individual psyche is incredibly blown out of proportion. We are living on an hypersocial age, so to speak.

That do not mean, however, that it could be discarded outright. By reading his manifesto you can clearly see the sequence of events:

- First, he had several issues himself. He wasn't unable to cope with sexuality nor his feelings of isolation, failure and rejection.

- Then, he tried to make sense of it, adopted mysoginistic ideas in order to rationalize his shortcomings and rejections. Predictably enough, he did it so by blaming society (dem evil feminism), external factors (douchebag men competing against him) and people other than himself that rejected him (women)

- Finally, he seeked validation for said ideas. I think that this is when the social aspect comes into play, not before, and it shows one of the most detrimental effects of the Internet: it is very easy to have validation for your ideas (any ideas) if you search hard enough. Internet acts like a vast echochamber, and the validation given by places like PUAHate clearly exacerbated his already well-stablished hatred towards women

The rest is sad, tragic history.

 

[SBH]

Half of his victims were asian. hmm

Roommates were Asian and I don't know who the third guy was.

I read the manifesto and it gave a glimpse of a world that was not the same as I see it. Being #1 was what he wanted from skateboarding to money to having the best girlfriend.

I liked your post Kirblar and people just talk about misogyny instead of arguing with others. Tell us your opinions on how it affected him, what to do about it so it doesn't happen again and what were key points in your opinion how he got to be so misogynist. No need to attack other posters - just talk.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

One thing in society you can directly point to is the idea that it's shameful to have not lost your virginity by a certain age. Would it have been such a big deal to him if that wasn't the case? He could accept certain personal failings like being terrible at social interactions in general but this particular failing was unacceptable to him because of what it meant for his status. Also the way that people talk about sex like it's the be all and end all must have influenced the huge importance he attached to it.

 

[Superflat]

One thing in society you can directly point to is the idea that it's shameful to have not lost your virginity by a certain age. Would it have been such a big deal to him if that wasn't the case? He could accept certain personal failings like being terrible at social interactions in general but this particular failing was unacceptable to him because of what it meant for his status. Also the way that people talk about sex like it's the be all and end all must have influenced the huge importance he attached to it.

I believe his views were exacerbated by the common idea, but it seemed to have been created by hearing his friends and acquaintances actually talk about having sexual experiences while he wasn't.

But of course his friends could have been making it up, and the cause of that would be because of this widespread idea that you shouldn't be a virgin in college.

IMO if he wasn't lamenting his virginity, he'd be dangerously obsessive about something else, whether it's money, fame, or anything else he lacks. The way he felt that he couldn't start doing anything with his life until he won the lottery said as much to me.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

okay, so now you have stated over and over again that misogyny is simply one aspect of whatever it was that was wrong with him. WELL, ...um, WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HIM?

oh woes, he couldnt cope with imaginary rejection and loneliness. and feelings of failure, and etc etc etc.

yes, sure. but what is it? what is the root of his inability to cope? why does he feel so bad for not being able to get a girl? WHY? What was the underlying pressure? What stressed him out? What notion was piled and surrounded him so suffocatingly that emphasizes the importance of a man's value through having a woman?

..... is ... is it .... widespread cultural and societal misogy-

Oh, YNNNY, dont be daft. the root is of course because he was ... well, he was just mentally unstable. He had INTERNAL ISSUES. okay?






k

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I believe his views were exacerbated by the common idea, but it seemed to have been created by hearing his friends and acquaintances actually talk about having sexual experiences while he wasn't.

But of course his friends could have been making it up, and the cause of that would be because of this widespread idea that you shouldn't be a virgin in college.

IMO if he wasn't lamenting his virginity, he'd be dangerously obsessive about something else, whether it's money, fame, or anything else he lacks. The way he felt that he couldn't start doing anything with his life until he won the lottery said as much to me.

Perhaps but it's worth mentioning that the reason he wanted to win the lottery was because he thought that being super wealthy was the only remaining way he could get a girlfriend. He was completely focused on that one goal and it was a matter of life or death to him. I'd argue that for a man theres not much else in society that carries a stigma as heavy as being a virgin past a certain age.

 

[Metra]

I don't have enough knowledge about the specifics of this case (I heard/read about it, but lacked time to get into the details), therefore I don't feel comfortable discussing it. However, I've seen a lot of arguments, in this thread, being made around mental "illness". So I'd like to make a few considerations in that regard:

1) The medical concept of mental health and mental "illness" is relative, not absolute. It's not a "black or white" situation (there are a lot of "gray areas") and socialcultural factors play a major role;

2) That said, the diagnosis of mental "illness" is, most of the time, complex and difficult to make. People asserting that the killer was (or wasn't) mentally ill -- based solely on his videos and forum posts -- are shooting in the dark and, most likely, don't know what they're talking about (from a medical perspective);

3) Even IF the killer had mental issues, that does not make him "inimputável" by default (forgive me here; I don't know the correct/best translation for that. Maybe it's "not legally accountable for his actions"). By and large, mentally "ill" people don't have impaired judgment (they can tell right from wrong -- morally and legally) or will (they have control and responsibility over their actions).

And that's basically it... I think It's important to address those issues, as there are a lot of stereotypes and prejudice against mentally "ill" patients.

 

[The Henery]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...print-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

Interesting point here

This is severe oversimplification, and an overly rapid rush to judgment. Rodger’s hatred — of both men and women — seemed tied instead to narcissism, jealousy, feelings of privilege and the world owing him. His mental disturbance seems as much about class as gender warfare.

His conception of class, and that the spoils of materialism were gifted to him without effort, played a huge part in his entitlement. Most people would have to work for several years to own a Beamer outright whilst being able to afford private Katy Perry concerts yet he had acquired these without lifting a finger. It's no surprise, given his documented mental disorders, that he couldn't find the distinguishing factor in why practically everything fell in his lap in life except genuine friendship and love.

 

[wildfire]

I hate to do that thing where you compare groups of oppressed people but if he was writing about how blacks, jews, gays would we really see so much bullshit trying to minimize his hatred?

Yes we would see that but I suspect more people would've been banned just like the Trayvon Martin thread.

You just have to accept the fact that, other than that guy who earlier advocated women should be giving guys blow jobs to prevent violence against them, no one here is 100% wrong and have been respectful in discussing their viewpoints.

 

[leadbelly]

However, on this thread, one group of posters had stated, on various posts, that he hated EVERYONE, thereby downplaying his focus against women. For whatever reasons, these posts kept cropping up!



But, nooooooooooooo, the most important thing is to establish that he was INSANE and that he was probably born that way and his misogyny is just one of the numerous, various, many, many other factors. Many other factors, OKAY.

This will be my last post now I think.

I am speaking about me personally. You know, I posted a lot in this thread, and I just looked back on my posts. Not once did I ever argue that people shouldn't speak about the misogynistic part. There were a few posts I read about misogyny, I didn't agree them entirely, but never quoted them.

I have a particular view, and I have presented evidence and examples of why I believe that. It was not simply me 'shutting down' talk of it, I was expressing my opinion, and giving valid reasons for them. A lot of my posts are me actually responding to people's criticisms of my view, (which I would address), discussing my view, or reaffirming exactly what my position is because they're misrepresenting my position. Not once did I ever say that people shouldn't discuss the misogyny part of this or try to force them to stop posting about it,

What I did contest, however, from the "other side" was people claiming we're in denial for having the audacity to speak about the mental issue side of things in expense to the the real discussion we should be having which is misogyny. This is said with the same breath about how we're trying to shut down talk about misogyny, without irony,

Edit:

Also, as far as I am aware, the other side has never, ever, ever denied that he was mentally unstable.

Actually, something else I will mention.

I've stated many times already that I am not denying he was a misogynist. I even agree that extreme misogynistic views from outside could very well have influenced his world view. Criticism of those groups therefore, I would probably agree with, especially if a convincing argument was made that show how much it affected his world view. So, actually, I was taking everything into account, exactly how you should.

Denying this was the case was never my argument. I just don't agree that 'society', and simply existing in it, was the root cause of him developing these toxic views, and ultimately mass murder was the logical end point.

If someone doesn't agree with my position, even if they say they believe his mental issues had an influence, by default they're denying it has great significance.

 

[Mumei]

Just on this note, he had actually been seeing people at thirteen (and presumably had since then, but he only focuses on the various life coaches and passes over his experience with psychiatric services) so "not receiving help..." is probably a little too extreme, and "receiving inadequate help..." probably a little closer to the situation. I'm probably just being pedantic here though, and this could have been what you meant.

On that note, I wanted to point out this passage from Masculinity, Violence, and Bandaid Solutions:

But we didn’t evolve that way, at least not yet. Unless we work very hard at it, we’ll inevitably believe what we’re taught so incessantly, as sexism is taught to all of us. Yet we are all capable of rational thought if we work at it, which is why I hold Rodger and all other men who believe in their conditioning and subject women to violence fully accountable for their actions.

A very good therapist could have helped Rodger with this process. Maybe. But when mass shootings happen and everyone bemoans the fact that the shooter didn’t go to (or wasn’t helped by) therapy, they never seem to ask themselves what this therapy would entail. You don’t go to therapy or go on medication and suddenly become happy. What you have to do is unlearn the maladaptive and harmful ways in which you’ve learned (or been taught to) think. For someone like me, this means learning not to be so afraid and not to treat every minor setback as the end of the world. In Rodger’s case, this might’ve meant learning how to be okay with not having sex with women for a while, learning the social skills to eventually find and keep a partner, and, most importantly, learning that women do not owe him a single damn thing. With that realization might’ve come freedom.

In other words, the way to help Rodger would have been to help him unlearn what he never should have learned in the first place. And there’s no guarantee that even the best of therapists could succeed at this; everyone in the field knows that sometimes clients are just beyond help (at least by a given therapist) and that it’s tragic and sad and don’t we wish we could’ve caught them earlier?

What if our culture had never taught Rodger these horrible beliefs?

What if our culture didn’t still treat women as possessions?

What if our culture didn’t emphasize hypermasculinity and getting laid at all costs?

What if, what if, what if.

This is the problem with the argument that he was just "crazy" and that he needed "therapy" (never mind the fact that he was receiving therapy, though how much of an active and engaged participant in the therapeutic process he actually was is something I don't know): You can't separate that from his misogynist beliefs, or pretend that therapy would have been about something other than addressing those issues.

 

[wildfire]

In the wake of a disaster like this, we naturally ask: how did this happen? Why did this happen?

From there, people can springboard into what they want to focus on. It might be gun control, mental health, misogyny or something else.

Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane. At a core, base level, he was completely out of his mind. His hatred of women...and there is no doubt that his hatred of women was a overwhelming factor in his thinking...was a manifestation of his mental illness. I am not minimizing the effects of misogyny is this case (or in general society) , but I do see it in the context of the overriding issue: we're talking about someone that is completely batshit crazy.

I'm a simpleton. I don't spend a lot of energy trying to decipher the motives of the insane, because they are insane. A reasonable examination of common societal factors doesn't really apply when you're talking about someone that is beyond reasoning. Everything that he wrote, felt, said and did, demonstrates that he was an unreasonable actor.

Bleh.

I'm still mulling over whether or not society provided women as a scapegoat or that he originally hated women with little input of society but you are painting his misogyny as a fabrication that was just created by chaotic thoughts.

The insanity reduced his barriers to kill. His insanity reduced his ability to rethink his positions.
Plenty of guys who hate on women don't go on a murderous rampage and opt to do other things to hurt them.

 

[The One Who Knocks]

On that note, I wanted to point out this passage from Masculinity, Violence, and Bandaid Solutions:

This is the problem with the argument that he was just "crazy" and that he needed "therapy" (never mind the fact that he was receiving therapy, though how much of an active and engaged participant in the therapeutic process he actually was is something I don't know): You can't separate that from his misogynist beliefs, or pretend that therapy would have been about something other than addressing those issues.

While it does seem like he didn't particularly care for the therapeutic process (his only really comment on it being here and unequivocally pessimistic), even were he to be 'an active and engaged participant' it would still require, "him [to] unlearn what he never should have learned in the first place". One of his biggest insecurities, or so the manifesto suggests, is that he hated his inability to conform to societal expectations. With this in mind (that is, focusing solely on this and ignoring the later extremely misogyny), it seems to me that it is drastically underselling the situation to try and state that the misogyny which formed is something which can easily be removed from the situation. As the article concludes, "by the time someone is in their early twenties and spewing hatred and bitterness, it may very well be too late. It’s never too late, however, to work harder at unlearning the lies we are taught about gender." If it's simply believed that he is 'crazy', 'mentally ill' or 'insane', he still could have had the misogynistic views he held eradicated, the best that could have been hoped for with 'adequate help'. Whether or not it would lead him to target somebody else is merely (again as Miri writes) "what if, what if, what if"; the fact of the matter is that he viewed women as objects, felt a sense of entitlement to them, and vowed revenge upon them. He can be simultaneously mentally ill, mysogynistic, and fully culpable all at the exact same time, you can't just take the mentally ill aspect and choose to go down hypothetical tangents to justify ignoring the misogyny.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

This will be my last post now I think.

I am speaking about me personally. You know, I posted a lot in this thread, and I just looked back on my posts. Not once did I ever argue that people shouldn't speak about the misogynistic part. There were a few posts I read about misogyny, I didn't agree them entirely, but never quoted them.

I have a particular view, and I have presented evidence and examples of why I believe that. It was not simply me 'shutting down' talk of it, I was expressing my opinion, and giving valid reasons for them. A lot of my posts are me actually responding to people's criticisms of my view, (which I would address), discussing my view, or reaffirming exactly what my position is because they're misrepresenting my position. Not once did I ever say that people shouldn't discuss the misogyny part of this or try to force them to stop posting about it,

What I did contest, however, from the "other side" was people claiming we're in denial for having the audacity to speak about the mental issue side of things in expense to the the real discussion we should be having which is misogyny. This is said with the same breath about how we're trying to shut down talk about misogyny, without irony,

where did I say about anyone forbidding discussion on misogyny? I said, discussions were made in the tone to downplay misogyny. Zuh?

I only was pointing out how people were all about his hatred against EVERYONE, which comes across to me as a bit disingenuous.

and what is this about irony? Did I not also say he was certainly having issues with mental instability in the same post? Hey?

sorry if I wasn't clear. Maybe I wasn't Englishing right. Or something

 

[Zoc]

The whole concept of "virgin shaming" is so bizarre to me. Less than a hundred years ago, unmarried men were expected to be virgins (how many actually were is obviously open to debate).

I've read quite a few great articles linked from this thread on "toxic masculinity" and virgin shaming. I think some great work could be done on the connection between the slow demise of female repression and these phenomena. I don't think it can possibly be a coincidence that they arose at the same time. Anyone have any good reading material on that?

 

[leadbelly]

where did I say about anyone forbidding discussion on misogyny? I said, discussions were made in the tone to downplay misogyny. Zuh?

I only was pointing out how people were all about his hatred against EVERYONE, which comes across to me as a bit disingenuous.

lol

I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.

Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?

Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.

 

[Bleepey]

The whole concept of "virgin shaming" is so bizarre to me. Less than a hundred years ago, unmarried men were expected to be virgins (how many actually were is obviously open to debate).

I've read quite a few great articles linked from this thread on "toxic masculinity" and virgin shaming. I think some great work could be done on the connection between the slow demise of female repression and these phenomena. I don't think it can possibly be a coincidence that they arose at the same time. Anyone have any good reading material on that?

I have not seen much serious discussion on it from proper publications but if you google it you'll see a lot of message board posts from people discussing it. I used to notice a shit tonne of virgin shaming on GAF from people who in this thread are now ironically complaining about "toxic masculinity".

I google searched and saw this thread.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2542762

 

[Kai Dracon]

This is the problem with the argument that he was just "crazy" and that he needed "therapy" (never mind the fact that he was receiving therapy, though how much of an active and engaged participant in the therapeutic process he actually was is something I don't know): You can't separate that from his misogynist beliefs, or pretend that therapy would have been about something other than addressing those issues.

It reminds me of the sociopath argument over business. People with sociopathic tendencies may be better at stepping on others and rising to the top in corporations. Some say there's nothing that can be done about this, because some people are just ruthless and inhuman. Others suggest adjusting the surrounding framework to limit the damage that sociopathic ladder-climbers can do.

 

[APF]

Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?

No, because it's a strawman. You're not understanding what people are saying. We see posts like: "Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane," and we say, it's weird to use "insanity" as a catch-all to handwave away what's a culturally / socially -generated idea. In fact, it's downright bizarre that so many people seem to have this need to explicitly minimize the reality of his misogyny, rather than simply discuss his mental illness as they claim to want to. Further, it's odd that when the reality of his misogyny is brought up, so much of the resultant conversation is about what we should be discussing (meta discussion), rather than just discussing it. When people argue that "insanity" is not the end of the discussion on motivation, they're not downplaying mental illness. They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas.

 

[EdibleKnife]

I'll just post this 2013 Huff Po article about misconceptions of the relationship between mental illness and homicides/mass murder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-friedman-lmsw/mental-health-care_b_2491109.html

Those who call for addressing the mental health issue in criminal violence have disparate and often unclear views of what can be done to help. But, despite their differences, they appear to share three highly questionable assumptions.

 

[faceless007]

lol

I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.

Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?

Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.

Here's the difference I think: Those who are preferring to talk about the mental illness aspect are claiming that his mental illness was the cause of his misogyny. Whether or not this is true, the implicit corollary to this is that he would not have been misogynistic without being mentally ill in the first place. But there's no reason to think that given that, you know, there are plenty of actually misogynistic people in the world who (as we're unfortunately finding out) hold many of the same beliefs as and sympathize with the killer, and yet who would not be classified as mentally ill.

No one is trying to "shut down" discussion of mental illness. However, claiming that his misogyny was just a part of his mental illness is to implicitly claim that if we solve the issue of mental illness, we would also solve the included problem of misogyny. And that's simply not true and in fact just overlooks the real cultural and social problems of misogyny that (I am assured no one disputes) exacerbated and played some role in shaping the killer's attitudes into what they were.

 

[kirblar]

Here's the difference I think: Those who are preferring to talk about the mental illness aspect are claiming that his mental illness was the cause of his misogyny. Whether or not this is true, the implicit corollary to this is that he would not have been misogynistic without being mentally ill in the first place. But there's no reason to think that given that, you know, there are plenty of actually misogynistic people in the world who (as we're unfortunately finding out) hold many of the same beliefs as and sympathize with the killer, and yet who would not be classified as mentally ill.

No one is trying to "shut down" discussion of mental illness. However, claiming that his misogyny was just a part of his mental illness is to implicitly claim that if we solve the issue of mental illness, we would also solve the included problem of misogyny. And that's simply not true and in fact just overlooks the real cultural and social problems of misogyny that (I am assured no one disputes) exacerbated and played some role in shaping the killer's attitudes into what they were.

Extrapolating people talking only about this specific instance into people talking about the broader problem is making assumptions about their intent that lead to talking past each other. Instead of assuming that those things are being stated implicitly and attacking views that they may not hold, leading to a blow-up, asking for clarification and opening a dialogue is likely to lead to a much better end result.

 

[Wazzy]

lol

I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.

Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?

Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.

I haven't seen anyone downplay him being mentally ill. Almost everyone in the thread have agreed that he was indeed, mentally ill.

What seems to be the discussion is whether or not his misogyny was just from him being mentally ill or if it there was other factors that contributed to his toxic views.

 

[Brakke]

The thing about the "mental illness" or "insanity" assessment is: what do people even mean by these words? What criteria does he fulfill?

There are some forms of mental illness which are absolute; say schizophrenia, which is a mechanically well understood abnormality in a person's brain chemistry. We can diagnose such with a quite high level of confidence because there are biological signals and effective treatments we can administer.

There is no evidence to suggest this guy was afflicted by such a disease as rendered him incapable of rational thought. And in any case we can't diagnose him with the same now. All we have to go on are behaviors. The "mentally ill" conversation only really matters if his behaviors are symptoms.

It's like Mumei raised: if he was "ill", what would treatment look like? Relearning and refuting his attitudes and developing techniques for controlling his emotions. Somehow in his experience of society, he missed these lessons or took the wrong lessons and went uncorrected. This is not a model of illness.

I fear that when people call him "insane", what they've done is looked at his behaviors and attitudes and decided "I would not make these decisions or hold these attitudes". It's a post hoc assignment, a label people affix on behavior

Somehow we've built a society and a culture with enough cracks that he fell through. We exposed him to reprehensible ideas without helping him to develop the tools to process them in an acceptable way. Once he'd taken up these attitudes, we failed to help him reject them after the fact.

I find the "mental health" and "it's not misogyny he would've killed someone" narratives cowardly. As far as we can say, he was not incapable of participating in society, we can only say that he didn't. He's far from the first person to develop in a way inimical to participation in our society and I'm sure he wont he the last. It's not biology's fault, it's his fault and it's our fault. We failed him and we failed his victims.

It doesn't have to be this way.

 

[Metra]

The thing about the "mental illness" or "insanity" assessment is: what do people even mean by these words? What criteria does he fulfill?

There are some forms of mental illness which are absolute; say schizophrenia, which is a mechanically well understood abnormality in a person's brain chemistry. We can diagnose such with a quite high level of confidence because there are biological signals and effective treatments we can administer.

There is no evidence to suggest this guy was afflicted by such a disease as rendered him incapable of rational thought. And in any case we can't diagnose him with the same now. All we have to go on are behaviors. The "mentally ill" conversation only really matters if his behaviors are symptoms.

It's like Mumei raised: if he was "ill", what would treatment look like? Relearning and refuting his attitudes and developing techniques for controlling his emotions. Somehow in his experience of society, he missed these lessons or took the wrong lessons and went uncorrected. This is not a model of illness.

I fear that when people call him "insane", what they've done is looked at his behaviors and attitudes and decided "I would not make these decisions or hold these attitudes". It's a post hoc assignment, a label people affix on behavior

Somehow we've built a society and a culture with enough cracks that he fell through. We exposed him to reprehensible ideas without helping him to develop the tools to process them in an acceptable way. Once he'd taken up these attitudes, we failed to help him reject them after the fact.

I find the "mental health" and "it's not misogyny he would've killed someone" narratives cowardly. As far as we can say, he was not incapable of participating in society, we can only say that he didn't. He's far from the first person to develop in a way inimical to participation in our society and I'm sure he wont he the last. It's not biology's fault, it's his fault and it's our fault. We failed him and we failed his victims.

It doesn't have to be this way.

I agree with most of your post, but the bold part isn't quite correct. Schizophrenia's pathogenesis is currently unknown. Diagnosis is not simple, it's almost completely clinical (there are no biological/chemical signs/markers that are pathognomonic) and is often made by exclusion. Also, there's evidence suggesting schizophrenia's not a single "entity", but a "component" in a spectrum of psychotic disorders (alongside bipolar and depressive behaviors). And "effective" wouldn't be the best way to describe treatment; antipsychotic medications (dopaminergic D2 receptor blockers) are first-line treatment for Schizophrenia, but are not specific for the disease and have significant side effects.

But I digress.

 

[besada]

I don't mind discussion of his mental well-being, in part because he had seen a psychiatrist and was prescribed an anti-psychotic, which suggests that a credentialed doctor thought he had some mental problems that might be helped with an anti-psychotic. But that's about all we can infer about his mental health from the information we have.

Of course, given that there are hundreds of thousands on people on anti-psychotics, very few of whom go on killing sprees, it's difficult to suggest that mental illness was the driving force behind the murder spree. And this is important to note, because the vast, vast majority of mentally ill people are not going to ever hurt anyone (with the possible exception of themselves). There are only a very few diagnoses that would cause us to believe a patient was a higher risk for hurting other people.

This is one of the things that disturbs me when we have these conversations. Someone does something hideous, and the immediate response is "he was mentally ill!" That doesn't tell us much of anything. It certainly doesn't tell us that his mental illness, sans some odious philosophy, was the driving force behind mass murder. Even knowing what drug he was on tells us very little, as the anti-psychotic he used is dispensed for anything from schizophrenia irritation in autistic folks. It's mostly used for "otherizing" murderers, because many people have the erroneous idea that it requires insanity to murder people. It allows those people who believe they're mentally "normal" to distance themselves from a mass murderer, which is understandable, but not necessarily accurate.

I guess my biggest issue with focusing on his mental health is that it's impossible for us to ever really know the state of it at this point. But we do have a pretty clear picture of his racism and misogyny to work with.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I see the mental health argument as a way to change the narrative. "He was sick, not a murderer." And unfortunately there's a racial element to it.

 

[kirblar]

I wonder if there's a underlying philisophical issue of "Do you believe everyone's capable of behaving normally without intervention in an ideal society?" behind the divide here.

I don't think it's fair to say that we don't have any more insight into his mind than just a list of doctor visits, if only because his manuscript gives us insight into how he thought, and how his reactions and interactions differed from the majority of us who neither hold misogynistic views or go attacking other human beings. He can only develop the tools necessary to process feelings and emotions if he has the capacity to do so, and I do believe you can make a case that he was naturally handicapped in that regard.

I would hope that everyone reading would understand that this is both an extreme case of both mental illness and misogyny, and that the normal everyday way in which they come up and interact with our lives is much more mundane and widespread.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Had to defriend someone from Facebook due to this discussion in one of my status updates. Petty, I know, but once someone starts attacking your cousin because "mansplaining is a slur and you're just a bigot playing oppression olympics"... it's time for them to go.

 

[Brakke]

I agree with most of your post, but the bold part isn't quite correct. Schizophrenia's pathogenesis is currently unknown. Diagnosis is not simple, it's almost completely clinical (there are no biological/chemical signs/markers that are pathognomonic) and is often made by exclusion. Also, there's evidence suggesting schizophrenia's not a single "entity", but a "component" in a spectrum of psychotic disorders (alongside bipolar and depressive behaviors). And "effective" wouldn't be the best way to describe treatment; antipsychotic medications (dopaminergic D2 receptor blockers) are first-line treatment for Schizophrenia, but are not specific for the disease and have significant side effects.

But I digress.

Yes thanks for calling on that. I wasn't being as precise as I ought've. I mean forms of schizophrenia respond incredibly well to antipsychotics. And yeah, the treatment is far from perfect. I have a cousin diagnosed with schizophrenia and the pre- and post-treatment worlds are different as night and day. Response to such treatments is sufficient to diagnose brain chemistry abnormalities if not specifically schizophrenia.

In any case, there's no evidence I've seen to indicate he had such an illness. We can say absolutely we don't like what this guy was thinking, but we have no reason to believe he was incapable of thinking in a well-adjusted, healthy way.

All of which is to say that saying "he was just insane" and closing the book is a woefully insufficient way to approach the matter.

 

[kirblar]

Just came across this article on the WaPo website and thought it was a very good read and a good example of the problems addressing this confluence of issues - No Good Option. It's about the chain of events where a set of parents did report their mentally ill son to police due to fears of violence and the consequences that followed that illustrate just how badly equipped we are to handle this type of person.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

lol

I did say that would be my last post, but I will respond to you. I did actually extend my other post to explain what my position actually is. That gives a little more context.

Fair enough, you didn't say that, but I responded more in irritation. It isn't even necessarily aimed at you as such, but more to do with the 'other side' as you put it. There have been a couple of posts in here about how we're downplaying the significance of misogyny and claiming we're trying to shut down talk of misogyny, while in the same breath trying to downplay the significance of his mental health issues and shut down talk of it. Do you see what I am getting at?

Just forget it anyway because I don't really want to carry on posting in this thread, I've posted far too much.

bolded part: no? I dont see people trying to shut down talk of mental health issues. i saw people being sceptical if mental health issues were the be-all-end-all basket.

and bye, i guess? huff~

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

The best advice to anyone trying to get better with women is to forget about trying to date them for a while and just try to make more female friends. You learn so much.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

I said this on another forum where people were claiming that they could empathize with him to some degree since they knew the frustrations of "involuntary celibacy."

He honestly sounds like a kid that was never properly talked to by caring parents or mentors. He was allowed to grow up thinking that he had a right to make his expectations his reality, and if that right was violated, someone else was to be punished in some manner. He felt that attending college gave him the right to experiment in sex, pleasure, and fun. His parents paid into his delusions by giving him a nice car, $300 sunglasses, nice clothes, tuition, and whatever else he wanted, never making sure he realized he was privileged, not simply claiming what was rightfully his.

I know lots of people like this. No, they're not killers, and almost all or none of them ever will be, but when someone truly believes that something is their right, and they're denied that right, they'll begin to seek punishment/justice.

If I can do one thing right with my kids, it's that I hope that I can teach them that whatever they get in life beyond whatever is actually defined as a basic human right in this country is either earned or given, it's not their right. They don't get to take. They don't get to punish others when their expectations overshoot their experiences.

Saying that you empathize or sympathize with a guy like this just means that you don't understand that SOME THINGS AREN'T YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE OR EXPERIENCE. Fix yourself and stop asking everybody else how they can bend over to understand you. We do, you have a distorted reality and don't understand the difference between privilege and rights. Just because there's enough of these people who don't know the difference between right and privilege to call them a group or a community, it doesn't mean that they have validation and a need for us to figure them out. Can we help them be better and be more civil to them? Sure, that's decent. Should we validate their behavior? No way.

Be it guns, knives, pea shooters, or whatever, this kid's issues were going to lead down this path no matter what. Guns enabled him to be more effective, I agree, but a lack of them would have just made him try other means, not deterred him. Yes, in other cases removing guns is a deterrent, so I don't want to get in that. It's just that IN THIS CASE, I don't think guns were an issue at all.

 

[leadbelly]

No, because it's a strawman. You're not understanding what people are saying. We see posts like: "Some people really want to talk about misogyny. That's fair play, but I think that in this case, its sort of putting the cart before the horse. Simply put: the man was insane," and we say, it's weird to use "insanity" as a catch-all to handwave away what's a culturally / socially -generated idea. In fact, it's downright bizarre that so many people seem to have this need to explicitly minimize the reality of his misogyny, rather than simply discuss his mental illness as they claim to want to. Further, it's odd that when the reality of his misogyny is brought up, so much of the resultant conversation is about what we should be discussing (meta discussion), rather than just discussing it. When people argue that "insanity" is not the end of the discussion on motivation, they're not downplaying mental illness. They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas.

I said I would go, but I kind of wanted address this point now. lol

It depends what their talking point is to being with. However, the interesting thing is, the things you describe that you find strange, you might well think fits me. Maybe that is the problem.

It's the focal point isn't it for a number of people? There is a political talking point, especially in some areas of the press, where the argument is being made that cultural misogyny is the root cause of his toxic views and ultimately the mass murder. His mental health issues seem to be downplayed as a result. In fact there was an article posted by mumei where she basically states something along the lines of, "We don't even know if he really had mental health problems". Didn't even bother to downplay it, just dismissed it totally (lol). Incidentally, I noticed there was a much more balanced view of it on the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/elliot-rodger-was-misogynist-killing-spree

There are some of us here that genuinely, I mean genuinely, believe that Rodger doesn't really fit this narrative. And so claims that we're intentionally trying to avoid talking about it comes across as you would expect.

As far as whether he was really mental ill or not, and the semantics of it: I started to use 'psychologically unstable' or 'mentally unstable' for exactly the point some people are raising. Rodger had a propensity to act extremely to things most people would find trivial, That in my mind makes him mentally unstable.

They're saying that it is not a sufficient explanation for culturally-generated ideas

And actually, talking about semantics, this is why I started using 'hated women' a lot because i could see the disconnect. 'Misogyny' is generally used in the cultural sense, but a basic meaning of the term is 'hatred of women'. However, when speaking of Rodger,there are times when what we're really speaking about is a very literal hatred of women. He certainly hated women. We can arrive to hate independently and completely internally. That hatred could then be expressed in a more ideological manner. Of course you could also talk about misogyny, and it may not mean a very real literal hatred at all. It could be something classed as misogynistic in a theoretical sense.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

After about a billion posts you've made, I still don't know your overall goal and point, man. I get the people who are constantly pointing out that it seems you're just trying to derail misogyny talk over and over for whatever reason.

 

[leadbelly]

After about a billion posts you've made, I still don't know your overall goal and point, man.

Interesting thing is, I don't have a 'goal' I just have an opinion. It's just that I tend to respond to every person that quotes me. A lot of my posts, are just me reaffirming what my position is.

My point I think is kind of clear though. I said it enough times, after repeating myself for the reason I made above. I even said it in that post.

After reading through his manifesto and looking at his videos, I don't think he fits the narrative that some are trying to fit him in. It may seem there is a goal I am trying to achieve, but I wouldn't post half as much if people didn't keep quoting me.

And it is the reason I keep saying I am going to stop posting in here.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Interesting thing is, I don't have a 'goal' I just have an opinion. It's just that I tend to respond to every person that quotes me. A lot of my posts, are just me reaffirming what my position is.

My point I think is kind of clear though. I said it enough times, after repeating myself for the reason I made above. I even said it in that post.

After reading through his manifesto and looking at his videos, I don't think he fits the narrative that some are trying to fit him in. It may seem there is a goal I am trying to achieve, but I wouldn't post half as much if people didn't keep quoting me.

And it is the reason I keep saying I am going to stop posting in here.

.............sooooooooooooooo

whats YOUR narrative?

.... what was wrong with him? according to you? what was the root of his issues?

(is it... uh, is it that "he hate everyone cuz he had INTERNAL ISSUES?")






cuz im with liu kang here. im not quite sure the salient points you are trying to establish. except that you find literal hate of women and theoretical hate of women to be .... uh.... a substantial difference? wat

hate of women is bad yo. in whatever form it takes. and i find people who classify one form of misogyny from another to excuse that one is 'not as harmful / deadly / whatever' smells a bit as if this person has some problem recognising or admitting misogyny as a problem in society (and individuals) in general.

 

[APF]

leadbelly: I have no idea what you're trying to say, your posts read like jumbles of vaguely-related words with no real thesis to me.

 

[AlexMogil]

leadbelly: I have no idea what you're trying to say, your posts read like jumbles of vaguely-related words with no real thesis to me.

I've read something like that recently

 

[MonkeyKing]

I can't say much more before getting to the point where I'm just repeating myself. But theres a couple of things I want to comment on:

I very much disagree here. Yes, as you say he had a huge variety of problems, but the impact culture had upon him cannot be overlooked or minimised. One of the most significant moments in the manifesto is when he directly states that he acquired validation of his ideals

He formed them through 'educating' himself, took pleasure in their presence in entertainment (I've not seen this movie so don't know how distorted his views are, but I very much doubt it's meant to be read in that manner), and helped to reinforce his views in these manners (that's ignoring what he saw through games [the industry also quite misogynistic in how it portrays women] and other online forums where people with extremist views can seek validation by existing within an echo-chamber). Perhaps if we lived in a society where 'acquiring' women isn't seen as an achievement, where women are not portrayed primarily as being weak and needing a 'tall, blonde, muscular male' to 'defend' them, where women aren't shamed as 'sluts' for expressing their sexuality while men are regarded as 'players', where men don't brag about their ventures with women (which he makes note of numerous times, even if his idea of 'bragging' is most likely inaccurate with regard to the extremity), and where hatred for women cannot be reinforced and left to fester he would have been disuaded from carrying out the act, and would have abandoned such clearly misogynistic and radical views. Would he have focused his hatred elsewhere? It's likely, as you say he was very far gone, but all we know for certain is that his personal experiences, his mental illness, and the society in which we live led to him developing an intense, seering hatred for women, which he viewed as objects. I think you're placing too little emphasis upon the societal impact that existed in focusing his hatred.

I don't intend to minimize or overlook the societal/cultural impacts on Rodgers. I do, however put those impacts into context. I'm convinced by the evidence of what he wrote and did that Rodgers was in a terrible mental state; that he was a misogynist, fueled and reinforced by outside forces, but the starting point of Rodgers as an individual was his extreme mental illness.

What I don't know is whether or not Rodgers could have been rehabilitated. I don't believe so, honestly. I think he was unwilling to be empathetic or to develop insight. He did not want to be dissuaded. He might have been one of those few, extraordinary cases of incorrigible dysfunction.

I could be wrong about that. Its possible that with the right supports and interventions, that he could've been turned away from this disaster. In a world like the kind you described above, perhaps he would've been a totally different person. Possibly. But I really don't know.....and I doubt it.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-links-isla-vista-shooting-spree-gay-marriage

Family Research Council senior fellow Ken Blackwell yesterday linked the Isla Vista mass killings to marriage equality laws, which he claimed are destroying the culture. Speaking with FRC president Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch,” Blackwell blamed the shooting on “the crumbling of the moral foundation of the country” and “the attack on natural marriage and the family.”

“When these fundamental institutions are attacked and destroyed and weakened and abandoned, you get what we are now seeing,” Blackwell said, arguing that people who are “blaming the Second Amendment” are “avoiding talking about what is at the root cause of the problem.”

Blackwell makes an excellent point, when Prop 8 was still in effect Elliott Rodgers killed nobody that we know of.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

I can't say much more before getting to the point where I'm just repeating myself. But theres a couple of things I want to comment on:



I don't intend to minimize or overlook the societal/cultural impacts on Rodgers. I do, however put those impacts into context. I'm convinced by the evidence of what he wrote and did that Rodgers was in a terrible mental state; that he was a misogynist, fueled and reinforced by outside forces, but the starting point of Rodgers as an individual was his extreme mental illness.

What I don't know is whether or not Rodgers could have been rehabilitated. I don't believe so, honestly. I think he was unwilling to be empathetic or to develop insight. He did not want to be dissuaded. He might have been one of those few, extraordinary cases of incorrigible dysfunction.

I could be wrong about that. Its possible that with the right supports and interventions, that he could've been turned away from this disaster. In a world like the kind you described above, perhaps he would've been a totally different person. Possibly. But I really don't know.....and I doubt it.

idk dude. i think others also put things into context in their arguments.

so, in summary of your post, the starting point of rodger's issues were mental illness..... anddddddd you dont believe he could be rehabilitated.










....k, i guess. but just sayin'.....its almost echo the onion article too close to home ;__;

 

[MonkeyKing]

If someone has such a specific target then chalking it up as just "they're insane" does absolutely nothing but skip any discussion and changes that come from dissecting why his views and attitude were the way they are. It's also an easy way out of people taking responsibility.

Up to that last sentence, I'd have to say you're correct.

Concluding that Rodgers was insane is indeed a simple, un-nuanced perspective. I agree that it doesn't leave much room for conversation, its sort of a dead-end. But, in this specific case of this specific individual, based on the evidence we've seen, I think its a valid conclusion. Sometimes a simple answer is an appropriate answer.

That isn't a satisfying conclusion though, if you'd like to discuss other, larger issues. This case can open the door to discussing any number of topics. We can now slide into a discussion of gun violence, misogyny, mental health...anywhere that theres information to be shared and knowledge received. Lets have it!

 

[otapnam]

It seemed like the guys aspergers and other issues kept him from having true friends but there was also his warped perspective of life.

I mean, we all grow up learning about family and societal expectations and stereotypes but there is usually a point in life where one learns what's right or wrong and how one should truly behave.

It's like he never learned how normal relationships work between people and created his twisted expectations about life from either his parents, friends, media or the internet.

 

[YesNOnoNOYes]

Up to that last sentence, I'd have to say you're correct.

Concluding that Rodgers was insane is indeed a simple, un-nuanced perspective. I agree that it doesn't leave much room for conversation, its sort of a dead-end. But, in this specific case of this specific individual, based on the evidence we've seen, I think its a valid conclusion. Sometimes a simple answer is an appropriate answer.

That isn't a satisfying conclusion though, if you'd like to discuss other, larger issues. This case can open the door to discussing any number of topics. We can now slide into a discussion of gun violence, misogyny, mental health...anywhere that theres information to be shared and knowledge received. Lets have it!

thank you for your permission!

...um. Let's!







or was that invitation was only to Wazzy's direction? ;__; in that case, pardon me, good sir.

 

[Dude Abides]

Wrap it up folks. Internet user MonkeyKing has concluded that Rodger was "insane" and that's all there is to it. Simple as. We can close the books on this one.

 

[Etrian Oddity]

So infamous Jeopardy "villain" Arthur Chu weighed in on the Elliott Roger thing on several NPR shows today.... definitely an interesting take, considering his Jeopardy persona and his really spot-on assessment (in my opinion).