A Forever Alone Dude kills 7 girls and himself and posted a bunch of creepy videos

[MadameChaos]

haha! damn i missed it!/isn't every month? (delete less amusing answer)

[goDel]

Uuuh, so you either haven't masturbated in May, or you did as you would have in any month. I'm amusingly confused.

[patternoverlap]

 

great, delet and kakapo chiming in about women. even a nice dumbass post by vamos.

 

fuck this, I'm going on killing spree, sweeties.

 

 

Look, I understand that my post comes across rather irritably. I'm not going to argue about it too much, because it's not a very pleasant subject for anyone. I'll just say that it does bother me a bit that we take so much joy, as men, and as a society, in laughing at men who are sexually frustrated*, and even past that, why we like to laugh at things that are different from us. It's always struck me as a weak way of thinking and living, yet it is the standard way. And then people hold their candles to the fucking sky.

 

Either way, from here on, I'll try not to write without thinking about how I'm coming off. Just try to remember that you look just as stupid to me as I look to you.

 

 

edit

 

 

 

I took it more as the need to grow from adolescence into adulthood. Based on my own experiences and observing others, many men have difficulty shedding the egocentrism, entitlement and generalized emo tendencies that accompany the teen years.

 

[delet...]

 

 

Misogyny, Entitlement and Nerds:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/your-princess-is-in-another-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html

Nice article right up until the end. What does growing up have to do with respecting other people as humans? This is something we should be teaching kids, not letting "grown ups" figure it out for themselves.

Otherwise though, he makes some excellent points.

I took it more as the need to grow from adolescence into adulthood. Based on my own experiences and observing others, many men have difficulty shedding the egocentrism, entitlement and generalized emo tendencies that accompany the teen years.

 

 

Why would they do that, if they did outgrow these tendencies how then would they relate and be relatable to women.

 

 

 

 

 

zing a zang zang mutha fukaz

[chenGOD]

xxx - I get what you're saying, but I think leaving it at "we need to grow up" places the onus on the individual when really it's a societal problem.

[doublename]

 

 

 

Misogyny, Entitlement and Nerds:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/your-princess-is-in-another-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html

Nice article right up until the end. What does growing up have to do with respecting other people as humans? This is something we should be teaching kids, not letting "grown ups" figure it out for themselves.

Otherwise though, he makes some excellent points.

I took it more as the need to grow from adolescence into adulthood. Based on my own experiences and observing others, many men have difficulty shedding the egocentrism, entitlement and generalized emo tendencies that accompany the teen years.

 

 

Why would they do that, if they did outgrow these tendencies how then would they relate and be relatable to women.

 

 

 

 

 

zing a zang zang mutha fukaz

 

I...I.... agree?!?!

 

Really though, to "grow up" is the worst thing a person of either gender can do if they ever want to have friends, screw or enjoy pop culture.

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

xxx - I get what you're saying, but I think leaving it at "we need to grow up" places the onus on the individual when really it's a societal problem.

 

Societal problems are dealt with by changing individual perceptions. It is absolutely up to the individual to change their mindset

[Guest grue]

i think sex and this guy's virginity are less important to this case than people think. more problematic is his narcissism (or, equivalently, his inability to see other people as anything but extras in his movie and his desperate need to construct a very specific outward identity). it's clear that he didn't just want sex; rather, he wanted validation and he viewed sex as the means to acquire it. if all he wanted was sex, he could have gotten a prostitute or lowered his standards, but that wouldn't have solved his problems--that's just sex, not validation. you can also see this in his obsession with specific kinds of women; they are precisely those that symbolize a certain kind of status to certain kinds of people. virginity itself is not enough to explain his rage and emptiness; virginity as narcissistic injury--as that thing that prevents him from maintaining his identity--is what explains it. he himself might not have fully recognized this, but self-deception is a powerful thing.

 

so, an interesting question is why people will focus so much on the virginity and sex angle, and why this is the aspect of the case that people will internalize. the answer, i think, is that it is a collective defense against change. that is, being able to think "at least i'm not a virgin, so i'm not like him" absolves us from having to reflect on the traits that we do share with him, at least collectively, namely our narcissism and obsession with status

[chenGOD]

 

xxx - I get what you're saying, but I think leaving it at "we need to grow up" places the onus on the individual when really it's a societal problem.

Societal problems are dealt with by changing individual perceptions. It is absolutely up to the individual to change their mindset

Changing individual perceptions of society is something that needs to be taught. How do you think socialization works?

[Guest Atom Dowry Firth]

 

 

xxx - I get what you're saying, but I think leaving it at "we need to grow up" places the onus on the individual when really it's a societal problem.

Societal problems are dealt with by changing individual perceptions. It is absolutely up to the individual to change their mindset

Changing individual perceptions of society is something that needs to be taught. How do you think socialization works?

 

 

Grow up Chen

[chenGOD]

 

 

 

xxx - I get what you're saying, but I think leaving it at "we need to grow up" places the onus on the individual when really it's a societal problem.

Societal problems are dealt with by changing individual perceptions. It is absolutely up to the individual to change their mindset

Changing individual perceptions of society is something that needs to be taught. How do you think socialization works?

Grow up Chen

chen up, Timothy.

[goDel]

Good points, grue.

 

Although I'd argue that the obsession with status is just a symptom of narcissism. Not some new thing besides narcissism.

 

But besides that, I still don't understand how this boy got to this point despite all the help he already had and the red flags which were bright and recognized by those close to him.

[Audioblysk]

 

 

 

 

Misogyny, Entitlement and Nerds:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/your-princess-is-in-another-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html

Nice article right up until the end. What does growing up have to do with respecting other people as humans? This is something we should be teaching kids, not letting "grown ups" figure it out for themselves.

Otherwise though, he makes some excellent points.

I took it more as the need to grow from adolescence into adulthood. Based on my own experiences and observing others, many men have difficulty shedding the egocentrism, entitlement and generalized emo tendencies that accompany the teen years.

Why would they do that, if they did outgrow these tendencies how then would they relate and be relatable to women.

 

 

 

 

 

zing a zang zang mutha fukaz

LulZ

[LimpyLoo]

One of Reagan's many great contributions to this world was shutting down every mental health facility he possibly could.

 

But hey, those Reaganomics tax cuts weren't gonna pay for themselves...

[doublename]

only poor people have crazy, move along.

[goDel]

Ah, yes. The explanation is pretty simple.

 

Thanks Reagan!

[MisterE]

 

Good points, grue.

 

Although I'd argue that the obsession with status is just a symptom of narcissism. Not some new thing besides narcissism.

 

But besides that, I still don't understand how this boy got to this point despite all the help he already had and the red flags which were bright and recognized by those close to him.

Deinstitutionalization of the American mental health system. 40 years ago, Eliot Rodgers, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Dylan Klebold et al. would all have been in long-term psychiatric hospitalization. We decided that homelessness, public health crises and giving free access to weapons was worth the savings to the government.

 

what exactly are you saying here? that 40 years ago these people would have been forcibly removed from their homes and dragged into hospitals by the government? just like always, the people close to the person have to either talk them into going or maybe try to have them committed. if someone doesn't do that, then yeah, they aren't going to be in 'long term psychiatric hospitalization'. how would they? these people don't just tend to realize they need help and go check themselves in. well, actually i'm sure a lot do, but there are still places they can go. what exactly are you saying has changed that would literally have resulted in the people you listed having been hospitalized and prevented their rampage killings in the past, and which are now not there to prevent those acts? i find this claim completely ridiculous.

 

another point, is that these cases are extremes. and in some ways possible exceptions, so that saying about you can't define a rule by exceptions i think kind of applies here. isn't it possible that these are the people who slipped through the cracks? for every one of these guys there are X amount of others who had similar habits, issues, etc, and actually ended up getting help in one form or another. is it really possible to have a system that catches every single person in a country of a few hundred mill people? it seems pretty ridiculous to try to politicize this stuff when there's always going to be cases of people flipping out, in any society. sure it'd be great to minimize that and i'm not saying it isn't possible, but there are so many variables happening that could influence these people, and the discussions about it seem to only focus on some of them. it seems to me that the bias of the person discussing it dictates what those variables are.

[goDel]

Perhaps the point is that those exceptions shouldn't have been slipping through cracks because everyone involved already recognised the potential dangers. The reason they slipped through is because the system doesn't allow dealing with them in a good way. The system is built such that those people can only be institutionalised AFTER the crime and not before. At least, that's what I understand. Criminalisation of the mentally ill.

 

Interesting read:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/

 

 

 

California was the first state to witness not only an increase in homelessness associated with deinstitutionalization but also an increase in incarceration and episodes of violence. In 1972 Marc Abramson, another young psychiatrist working for San Mateo County, published a landmark paper entitled “The Criminalization of Mentally Disordered Behavior.” Abramson claimed that because the new LPS statute made it difficult to get patients admitted to a psychiatric hospital, police “regard arrest and booking into jail as a more reliable way of securing involuntary detention of mentally disordered persons.” Abramson quoted a California prison psychiatrist who claimed to be “literally drowning in patients. . . . Many more men are being sent to prison who have serious mental problems.” Abramson’s paper was the first clear description of the increase of mentally ill persons in jails and prisons, an increase that would grow markedly in subsequent years.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

[MisterE]

no. because first of all, that paper is dated to 1972 and that's before Reagan took over, so with regards to trying to put a majority of the blame for either the incident itself or the state of the mental health care in the US onto him, it seems to me that godel just posted a paper that flies squarely in the face of his childish reagan slamming (why exactly do you get off on following american politics and slamming american republicans when you don't even live here godel? to me that's just odd, but i guess it seems to be a world wide hobby. as if your country is perfect? i mean you're casually talking about 'the system' as if you're familiar with it first hand... it's an american system and correct me if i'm wrong but you're not american?). beside the fact that it predates reagan, one paper full of claims, written by one guy, is hardly empirical evidence.

 

2nd your (xxx) assertion that this or these other similar instances simply wouldn't have happened 40 yrs ago, is just completely ridiculous. you can't know that. nobody can. there are so many variables at play here, and simply so many things that have changed drastically in 40yrs in this country, that you would need tons and tons of data to be able to come to any really well informed conclusion about what things may be at play here, and even then it's going to be educated guesswork. there could always be an unseen X-factor.

 

and this is all besides the fact that these rampage killings have happened in the US going back before 40 years ago. you can say that the frequency may have increased, but that's really irrelevant here because godel just said it's not about slipping through the cracks, as if, as i suggested, you people actually expect there to be a such thing as a system that can catch literally every potential threat before one of these events happens, and that it used to actually be that way until reagan or some other republican screwed it up. so basically you're both suggesting that 40yrs ago none of these events did happen. only problem is, they did. and not just in the US.

 

lastly, you'd have to have a system of almost complete control over everyone, with constant monitoring (as we are approaching), and actual actions taken by the government, including people being forcibly committed, based on profiles. we would also need a lot more buildings and staff since it's going to be hundreds of thousands of people dragged into hospitals against their will. you'd have to have complete 'turnkey tyranny' to prevent every single one of these things from happening. i haven't seen any hard data posted here that i would say makes a confident case that the bulk of the problem is that more of these people are slipping through the net, rather than the possibility that there are simply more of these people now, than there were in the past, per capita, and possibly the net is being saturated by them. but if that were the case, then we'd have to ask why are people flipping their shit?

 

oh but that's boring lets just blame it on reagan!

[Candiru]

What we know today as the prison industrial complex started under Reagan's administration, and mentally ill people who do not contribute to the economy are better used as a commodity in that system, rather than spending any money trying to help them. That's why mentally ill people won't really be helped before they commit crimes. It's terrible, but it is what happens time and time again. Reagan was an asshole, anyone from any country is free to say that.

[goDel]

Did you even bother to follow the link?

 

So your arguments are that complete control is impossible and that guys from abroad shouldn't bother to even try to understand what the hell is happening in the US. Wow.

 

Regardless of your complete control argument, which nobody asserted as far as I can tell, what are your ideas about situations like those of The Forever alone dude here (there are more obviously)? Situations where the red flags are there. Go for the cop/ jail combo, even though there hasn't been a crime? Something else?

 

If you want to drop the political Reagan angle, you could always present a better story/ solution.

 

I don't get off on slamming Reagan, btw. I was just asking questions and googled some things about this deinstitutionalisation xxx was talking about. It just happened to be tied to Reagan. But if it wasn't for Reagan, I'm sure some other president would have done something similar. The interesting thing about Reagan (hey, wasnt he governor of California somewhere in those seventees?) is that he was confronted with some mad man trying to kill him early in his presidency. But despite that, he cut funding to those mental health institutions (second paragraph of the link I posted). Awkward, right? But I 'm sure he had his reasons.

[MisterE]

rampage killings happened before reagan. they happen in countries besides usa.

anyone is free to say whatever about whoever, and i'm sure i've said things about political figures in other countries. i'm not infatuated or obsessed with parroting talking points to take sides and represent 'my team' on a consistent basis with events/issues that aren't even in my country though. to me yeah that's a bit odd. and the attitude of it is just, i mean look at the post of godels with the black and white reagan saluting and the 'thanks reagan' and step back and look at the fact that in simple terms, this shooting is being blamed on reagan. the explanation is pretty simple? i think it's anything but that. and anyone claiming it's simple is being dishonest as all hell. but continue patting each others backs for having all the answers guys.

 

maybe reagan wasn't/isn't the only asshole?

 

@mesh gear- grow up

[goDel]

*sings "I'm a straw maaaaaaan"*

[goDel]

Seriously though, I was not trying to shove the responsibility into Reagans throat. If I made it seem that way, I'm denying it here and now. And if the thank you Reagan with picture seems childish, I would agree. I was just going for the "thanks Obama" angle for shits and giggles. ( have I ever seen you defend Obama against these childish "thanks Obama" memes, btw?)

 

If you do want to have some meaningful discussion though, I'm still interested to hear the how this could happen and what could be done to prevent this. Again, this is not about complete control.

[MisterE]

i just fail to see how having money pumped into treatment of mental conditions prevents people who are legally free to move about in society, from snapping out and shooting people. especially when paranoia often goes hand in hand with mental illness, so lots of these people aren't going to want to go somewhere and get help, and won't like you suggesting it to them. and lots of these ticking time bombs don't even have someone around who would even care enough to make that suggestion. some people are completely on their own. how does money going into the mental health industry fix that? you have 300,000,000+ people in this country and all it takes is one person and several victims to make this kind of headline. i'm amazed it doesn't happen more often, considering how chaotic life and the universe are. but meanwhile, standard homicides rack up a much higher death toll, and they've always been around since pre-history.

 

james holmes apparently told people he wanted to kill people before he did, and he was actually seeing a psychiatrist, who actually broke patient doctor confidentiality to inform the cops about him due to concerns, and he still got to do what he did. you can't just magically fix any problem in society by throwing (borrowed) money at it.