Mass killer becomes incel hero

[New Emeline]

but is it a holy bridge

No, I only sell the best bridges, no holes guaranteed.

[Underdark Cave]

If you really thinnk that religion and politics aren't basically one and the same then I have a bridge to sell you.

They're not, at all.
Religion is just a means that people have to get others to behave and to further their own ends. Why do you think the Vatican has such a shitload amount of money? Because God said that the pope needs to have lots of cash?

It's also useful to get others to kill for you. You just tell them you're a prophet of <god's name>, so they should do as you say. This is what most """terrorist groups""" do.

At this point you may as well just concede that you're not using a definition of terrorism that relates to anyone else's, or to the vast plethora of "terrorism" in the world today, and are therefore wasting your own time, and everyone else's, on pedantry.

I'm using the pre-9/11 one, since the post-9/11 one is pretty much "anyone the US doesn't like"

[Dogmeat]

At this point you may as well just concede that you're not using a definition of terrorism that relates to anyone else's, or to the vast plethora of "terrorism" in the world today, and are therefore wasting your own time, and everyone else's, on pedantry.

I'm using the pre-9/11 one, since the post-9/11 one is pretty much "anyone the US doesn't like"

As memory serves, pre-9/11 Al-Qaeda were still considered terrorists. It seems more like you're just being contrarian.

[Fartsniffage]

[They're not, at all.
Religion is just a means that people have to get others to behave and to further their own ends. Why do you think the Vatican has such a shitload amount of money? Because God said that the pope needs to have lots of cash?

It's also useful to get others to kill for you. You just tell them you're a prophet of <god's name>, so they should do as you say. This is what most """terrorist groups""" do.

Your understanding of the world is certainly unique.

[Underdark Cave]

I'm using the pre-9/11 one, since the post-9/11 one is pretty much "anyone the US doesn't like"

As memory serves, pre-9/11 Al-Qaeda were still considered terrorists. It seems more like you're just being contrarian.

Maybe I am.
Then again, if thinking that some dude offing 10 others for a cause that doesn't exist doesn't constitute as terrorism makes me a contrarian, I'd rather be one.

The "ideology" part of the terrorist definition leaves it too open to interpretation, and situations like these are proof.

[Underdark Cave]

Your understanding of the world is certainly unique.

Unique? Hardly. There's even a known song about it.
Money makes the world go round.

Do you think cult leaders believe the shit they spew?

[Dogmeat]

As memory serves, pre-9/11 Al-Qaeda were still considered terrorists. It seems more like you're just being contrarian.

Maybe I am.
Then again, if thinking that some dude offing 10 others for a cause that doesn't exist doesn't constitute as terrorism makes me a contrarian, I'd rather be one.

The "ideology" part of the terrorist definition leaves it too open to interpretation, and situations like these are proof.

No, I think what's happened is that you're so desperate to exclude this one guy, that you've excluded Al-Qaeda. This guy can't be a terrorist. You've decided on that, and you're not backing down on it. So no other terrorists can be terrorists either.

[New Emeline]

Your understanding of the world is certainly unique.

Unique? Hardly. There's even a known song about it.
Money makes the world go round.

Do you think cult leaders believe the shit they spew?

No, but that doesn't make them not cult leaders.

[Fartsniffage]

Your understanding of the world is certainly unique.

Unique? Hardly. There's even a known song about it.
Money makes the world go round.

Do you think cult leaders believe the shit they spew?

He says with Donald Trump in the White House...

[Underdark Cave]

No, I think what's happened is that you're so desperate to exclude this one guy, that you've excluded Al-Qaeda. This guy can't be a terrorist. You've decided on that, and you're not backing down on it. So no other terrorists can be terrorists either.

You think I'm some sort of incel social engineer (as if that wasn't oxymoron enough) trying to get people to view this dude with better eyes?
No, I'm just trying to say that throwing around the word "terrorist" will eventually make it lose its meaning, and that just because you call someone a terrorist doesn't make them a terrorist.

No, but that doesn't make them not cult leaders.

Okay?

He says with Donald Trump in the White House...

Are you implying Donald Trump is a cult leader?

[Dogmeat]

No, I think what's happened is that you're so desperate to exclude this one guy, that you've excluded Al-Qaeda. This guy can't be a terrorist. You've decided on that, and you're not backing down on it. So no other terrorists can be terrorists either.

You think I'm some sort of incel social engineer (as if that wasn't oxymoron enough) trying to get people to view this dude with better eyes?
No, I'm just trying to say that throwing around the word "terrorist" will eventually make it lose its meaning, and that just because you call someone a terrorist doesn't make them a terrorist.

I'll tell you what will make "terrorist" loose it's meaning:
Saying that terrorism is all about "point of view" and that almost every terrorist in the world today... isn't.

My definition of terrorism has been consistent, it is widely used, and it applies to this guy.

You're the one obfuscating.

[Underdark Cave]

I'll tell you what will make "terrorist" loose it's meaning:
Saying that terrorism is all about "point of view" and that almost every terrorist in the world today... isn't.

My definition of terrorism has been consistent, it is widely used, and it applies to this guy.

You're the one obfuscating.

Terrorism is about point of view.
Ask some Syrian whose family got killed by US airstrikes whether he thinks the US government is a terrorist group or not.

Things are rarely not obfuscated. Wanting to put everything into black and white terms is foolish.

[Chessmistress]

Misogyny, male entitlement, toxic masculinity: every one of those things can - and do - kill, sometimes even in little doses.
When you mix all three in large doses, then it's even worse, and mass killings may happen.

[Dogmeat]

I'll tell you what will make "terrorist" loose it's meaning:
Saying that terrorism is all about "point of view" and that almost every terrorist in the world today... isn't.

My definition of terrorism has been consistent, it is widely used, and it applies to this guy.

You're the one obfuscating.

Terrorism is about point of view.
Ask some Syrian whose family got killed by US airstrikes whether he thinks the US government is a terrorist group or not.

Things are rarely not obfuscated. Wanting to put everything into black and white terms is foolish.

So your problem with the word "terrorist" is that it doesn't have a firm definition. And your argument for why it doesn't have a firm definition is that it shouldn't have a firm definition.

You're arguing against yourself. You cannot complain that terrorism is too loose a term while you are actively tying it to the rack.

[Underdark Cave]

So your problem with the word "terrorist" is that it doesn't have a firm definition. And your argument for why it doesn't have a firm definition is that it shouldn't have a firm definition.

Honestly? After all this argument, my problem with the word terrorist is that it fucking exists and people (particularly media) use it, never mind how subjective and loose it is.
Sounds like the monsters parents create to scare children into behaving.

[Dogmeat]

So your problem with the word "terrorist" is that it doesn't have a firm definition. And your argument for why it doesn't have a firm definition is that it shouldn't have a firm definition.

Honestly? After all this argument, my problem with the word terrorist is that it fucking exists and people (particularly media) use it, never mind how subjective and loose it is.
Sounds like the monsters parents create to scare children into behaving.

So now we've gone from "he's not a terrorist because..." to "there are no such thing as terrorists." You just think you can put that goalpost wherever, don't you?

I'll tell you what: pretty much any scary thing "sounds like the monsters parents create to scare children into behaving." If that's your benchmark for whether or not a thing exists, then I guess there are no murderers, rapists, bears, or leopards.

[Underdark Cave]

So now we've gone from "he's not a terrorist because..." to "there are no such thing as terrorists." You just think you can put that goalpost wherever, don't you?

I'll tell you what: pretty much any scary thing "sounds like the monsters parents create to scare children into behaving." If that's your benchmark for whether or not a thing exists, then I guess there are no murderers, rapists, bears, or leopards.

Actually, "he's not a terrorist because..." and "there are no such thing as terrorists" aren't exclusive.
He could not be a terrorist because there are no such thing as terrorists, so there's really no goalpost moving.
But my original point was that he's not a terrorist because even if I believed terrorism was a thing, what he did was just the product of an insane mind, and not a political or ideological statement.

Also, no, because while terrorism depends on your point of view, murder, rape, bears and leopards don't.
While we're at it, to the whole terrorism existing or not thing, I see two possible views: Either it doesn't exist, or it does, and nearly every nation/armed force on the world should be considered a terrorist organization. Still haven't decided on which.

[Dogmeat]

So now we've gone from "he's not a terrorist because..." to "there are no such thing as terrorists." You just think you can put that goalpost wherever, don't you?

I'll tell you what: pretty much any scary thing "sounds like the monsters parents create to scare children into behaving." If that's your benchmark for whether or not a thing exists, then I guess there are no murderers, rapists, bears, or leopards.

Actually, "he's not a terrorist because..." and "there are no such thing as terrorists" aren't exclusive.
He could not be a terrorist because there are no such thing as terrorists, so there's really no goalpost moving.

Do you think I don't remember what you said a page ago?

I don't, I just prefer the definition of terrorism that makes it a strictly political thing.

Anyone that kills for God is just insane.

There really is.

But my original point was that he's not a terrorist because even if I believed terrorism was a thing, what he did was just the product of an insane mind, and not a political or ideological statement.

Now those are two things that are not exclusive.

Also, no, because while terrorism depends on your point of view, murder, rape, bears and leopards don't.

Murder and rape absolutely do. As societies we make all sorts of rules for when killing is and is not murder, and when sex is and is not consensual, and we haven't been entirely consistent about these things throughout history. By your standards, that means that they do not exist.

[Underdark Cave]

Actually, "he's not a terrorist because..." and "there are no such thing as terrorists" aren't exclusive.
He could not be a terrorist because there are no such thing as terrorists, so there's really no goalpost moving.

Do you think I don't remember what you said a page ago?

I don't, I just prefer the definition of terrorism that makes it a strictly political thing.

Anyone that kills for God is just insane.

There really is.

But my original point was that he's not a terrorist because even if I believed terrorism was a thing, what he did was just the product of an insane mind, and not a political or ideological statement.

Now those are two things that are not exclusive.

Also, no, because while terrorism depends on your point of view, murder, rape, bears and leopards don't.

Murder and rape absolutely do. As societies we make all sorts of rules for when killing is and is not murder, and when sex is and is not consensual, and we haven't been entirely consistent about these things throughout history. By your standards, that means that they do not exist.

I do remember my previous posts, I remember I said I prefer, not I adhere to. If I have to use a definition I'll use that one, but again, I've yet to decide whether everyone is a terrorist or no one is.
And yes, they are exclusive, unless you take seriously the ideologies of the insane. I'd much rather not even give them entity, since if you do, they end up spreading.

Finally, regarding your rape and murder argument, I'm fairly certain everyone on the planet except the most backward shitholes can agree that rape is always a bad thing.
There's an entire 1st world nation that believes that getting your own twin towers blown up is a bad thing, but bombing other people's towers is a good thing because you're "fighting terrorism", whatever the fuck that means.
It's not the same topic, so the analogy is moot.

Wish I knew how to do the mass quoting thingy.

[Bombadil]

I was watching a documentary on Kyrgyzstan yesterday, apparently the sentence for kidnapping a woman for marriage is 3 years, for sheep it's 11 years and, as one guy quipped, 'hey, at least you can eat the sheep'.

Perhaps incels can move to a country that better represents their views.

[Tahar Joblis]

Your understanding of the world is certainly unique.

Unique? Hardly. There's even a known song about it.
Money makes the world go round.

Do you think cult leaders believe the shit they spew?

Some do, some don't. In some cases, it's really hard to know, and if you repeat a lie often enough, you may very well start believing it.

[Right wing humour squad]

Found an interesting read on Incels.

I’m uncertain of the source though as I’ve never heard of it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel

[New Emeline]

Found an interesting read on Incels.

I’m uncertain of the source though as I’ve never heard of it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel

That is an interesting article.

[Bombadil]

Found an interesting read on Incels.

I’m uncertain of the source though as I’ve never heard of it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel

That is an interesting article.

It is.. and it raises some questions..

1. The role of the rise in divorce on creating loss of security in young children - I read ERs manifesto and he was from a divorced family albeit in far better economic circumstances
2. The effects of sexual liberation - the good and bad of greater choice
3. The difference between human and online interactions

I'm not laying any real blame on the above, they also have great benefits attached, society has gone through a pretty major shift in the last 60 years and these seem to be offshoot effects to a degree. We seem to be in a period where people are unsure of how to react to these changes.

EDIT: I had written this to a now deleted post..

To be fair I really doubt sex has much to do with this, seems to me it's a sense of profound alienation caused by a variety of factors. To a degree I think the rules of dating and relationships has changed dramatically, the onus does remain on males to initiate any advance and often to, say, pay for a first date and etc., - it simply remains somewhat of a fact despite the idea that this no longer is acceptable. And it's true to say a good degree of females do expect the male to pay. In my circle that isn't really the case but then in my circle females can easily afford to pay given many are in banking and other high end jobs.

Yet now you're creating a system by which one is either successful or not. Personally I think much of this pressure is imagined but I can accept that's my point of view. Success is equated with good looks, a degree of wealth, success with the opposite sex..

Add in a dash of extra insecurity, be it from childhood trauma such as divorce, inbuilt personality or perception on looks - amplify with isolation and then fuel with online support groups that helps justify the thought that the world is against you -stir and pop in the oven for results.

Humans by and large credit themselves for success and blame others for failure, so obviously someone to blame is required.. and this turns out to be society as a whole, successful men to a degree but the vitriol seems directed at females.

Of course you can create an entire cod-philosophy against feminism as a result but this is surely misdirected. I think the larger question is to consider the dramatic social changes over the past 60 years and how to alleviate social isolation.

[Dogmeat]

Do you think I don't remember what you said a page ago?

There really is.


Now those are two things that are not exclusive.


Murder and rape absolutely do. As societies we make all sorts of rules for when killing is and is not murder, and when sex is and is not consensual, and we haven't been entirely consistent about these things throughout history. By your standards, that means that they do not exist.

I do remember my previous posts, I remember I said I prefer, not I adhere to. If I have to use a definition I'll use that one, but again, I've yet to decide whether everyone is a terrorist or no one is.
And yes, they are exclusive, unless you take seriously the ideologies of the insane. I'd much rather not even give them entity, since if you do, they end up spreading.

Nice backpedaling. This doesn't work though, because - lest we forget - you're pretty liberal with the use of the term "insane" as well. Remember that "Anyone that kills for God is just insane."

Which means that a vast plethora of nearly universally agreed on terrorists are "insane." So the two can't be universally exclusive.

Finally, regarding your rape and murder argument, I'm fairly certain everyone on the planet except the most backward shitholes can agree that rape is always a bad thing.

In some places that aren't "backward shitholes" a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape. I'm not convinced that's always a bad thing.

But you miss the point. What qualifies as "rape" and "murder" are not set in stone. Just like "terrorism" is not set in stone. The exact meaning sometimes changes. But that doesn't mean these things are fictional. And, like all words, so long as people generally know what they mean when they use them, the terms have value.

We all know what we mean when we use the word "terrorist," and I think you do too. Trying to argue that we don't, actually, know what we mean is pointless. We do. If you don't like our definition of "terrorist," great. You don't have to use it. But don't tell us we can't, because we're all on the same page here.