Several people killed in shooting at Texas high school, suspect in custody

[crocoduck_hunter]

Ah, Mouse, I see you've been reading about Jordan Peterson's latest verbal diarrhea.

[BrianB]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

And so it goes, bring out the Onion headline again...

Ali

The following tweet is in regards to Cynthia Tisdale, who was one of the victims.

This is such an American story.
1) Medical debt;
2) Working two jobs;
3) Underpaid teacher;
4) Death by school shooting.

None of these should happen. None of them needs to happen. We can fix all of this. We just need the political will. https://t.co/B9KNLgPRLI

— David Atkins (@DavidOAtkins) May 20, 2018

Brian

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by Richard W

Yes, indeed, but would any of that have meant that somebody would have stopped the guy from having a gun? As I understand US gun control, all of it seems to be entirely irrelevant. (Especially as I gather he just took his dad's guns anyway).

The law already prevented this particular asshole from owning any guns as he is only 17 and someone has to be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun (21 to own a handgun). As you said, the guns he used were his father's gun so any gun removal law would have to have included removing any guns in the person's residence or ones that he would have access to.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

-- UEL, the USA's been through worse. I really wouldn't write us off just yet.

I'm not so sure. From an outsider's perspective the US has become an less strustworthy and unreliable security, business and political player. Even to the point that Canada has started shifting our military and political efforts away from being good neighbours to the US and working with others. And we are not alone.

- CANZUK has become as force whereby the 4 nations of UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand will start to eliminate tariffs, promote freedom of movement and share much more information. The UK is looking to do this because the post-Brexit UK needs something to help it survive. Australia and New Zealand want it because it offers good access to North America and Europe. Canada wants it because most of our trade goes south, but we have a trading partner who wants to punish us regularly. The US does not like it because if this goes through, it means that goods exported to Canada can reasonably make it to Asia and Europe without tariffs and other profits. Likewise, foreign (read Asian) goods can be imported into the US without duty. Further, it will see freedom of movement of people from all four countries. Including Asian-Australians and Arab-British able to come to Canada without difficulty.

- Canada is creating military agreements with a whole plethora of other nations due to the US closing shop to working with other nations (in many small agreements, the US ceased working under the conditions into which they agreed to work). Canada now has agreements with the Netherlands (not too bad, another NATO partner) and Sweden (not a NATO partner). We are also going to be working with the Finns (right next to Russia) and Jamaica.

- many major businesses are shifting their efforts and staffs away from the US. The way the US has worked for 25 years is that if you want a government contract, you have to be situated in the US. So, major corporations from other nations would open up shop in the US, and for the most part, conduct most of their operations there. So, while a company may be British, its head office in the UK would employ 50 people and that would work well for promoting and conducting business in Europe, the American office would be 1000 people, and conduct business in the US, Asia, the Americas, Africa and Europe. Now, many of these companies are expanding their home business, taking on the role of the company in the rest of the world, and reducing their American footprint to the minimum to work in the US.

All this, if there is a recovery period, will take a generation to recover from. And with pressures from the BRICS (business), Russia (security) and dwindling effectiveness as the world's superpower (politics), I am not that optimistic for it.

But this is a case where I hope I am wrong.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Ah, Mouse, I see you've been reading about Jordan Peterson's latest verbal diarrhea.

Have you read Peterson? Or have you read what others have written about Peterson?

I find it interesting that most people who comment like this have not read Peterson. Just like most people who comment on the JFK investigation have not read the Warren Report.

Give it a read and then see if you call it diarrhea or whether others have latched onto it and called it diarrhea.

I am not a Peterson fan, but I have been surprised at how many have lashed out at him for stuff he is not saying (they have been putting words and thoughts into his mouth).

Very interesting times.

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by UEL

I'm not so sure. From an outsider's perspective the US has become an less strustworthy and unreliable security, business and political player. Even to the point that Canada has started shifting our military and political efforts away from being good neighbours to the US and working with others. And we are not alone. [etc]

Ah. I didn't realize that was the direction you were looking at it from; I was thinking in terms of distrust and levels of violence among our own citizenry.

I do think much of our current foreign policy is a huge mistake (including the question of whether we've even got a coherent foreign policy at the moment.) But I don't know that the USA would in any case continue indefinitely as a center of world economic and political power. Does any country? These things shift around.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by UEL

Give it a read and then see if you call it diarrhea or whether others have latched onto it and called it diarrhea.

I call this diarrhea:

“I read Betty Friedan’s book [The Feminine Mystique] because I was very curious about it, and it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake, you — you — ”

Just for starters.

I am not a Peterson fan, but I have been surprised at how many have lashed out at him for stuff he is not saying (they have been putting words and thoughts into his mouth).

Can you provide an example of words being put into his mouth?

ETA: More diarrhea, IMO:

“You know you can say, ‘Well isn’t it unfortunate that chaos is represented by the feminine’ — well, it might be unfortunate, but it doesn’t matter because that is how it’s represented. It’s been represented like that forever. And there are reasons for it. You can’t change it. It’s not possible. This is underneath everything. If you change those basic categories, people wouldn’t be human anymore. They’d be something else. They’d be transhuman or something. We wouldn’t be able to talk to these new creatures.”

If we stop characterizing chaos as feminine, we'd cease to be human? We wouldn't be able to talk to each other? Ridiculous nonsense.

FETA: Both quotes are from his NYT profile.

[crocoduck_hunter]

After the Toronto truck attack, he made statements about how some men are violent because they're not getting sex and that it could be fixed with "enforced monogamy."

Even if you're charitable and choose not to interpret that as a call for state-enforced sexual slavery, it's still putting the blame for men being violent on women.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by Mouse

Apparently, it’s the duty of women everywhere to rehabilitate assholes with our vaginas, in hopes that they won’t kill everyone....

Right, but make sure you stay virginal and/or 100% faithful while doing so, so you won't be classified as a slut.

I'm not saying that women are perfect, but sheesh, men. Can we stop being quite so awful? (I'm trying, really.)

[GenYus234]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Can we stop being quite so awful? (I'm trying, really.)

We should probably start by not adding a "nudge, nudge, wink wink" to the condemnation of extreme masculine attributes.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Ah, Mouse, I see you've been reading about Jordan Peterson's latest verbal diarrhea.

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

Right, but make sure you stay virginal and/or 100% faithful while doing so, so you won't be classified as a slut.

I hadn't meant for it to be about Peterson, specifically, but more about the toxic meme that keeps to be spreading as of late, though I have no problem with Peterson being tarred with my brush. It's a toxic message that keeps showing up, a variation on #WalkUp,NotOut, another victim-blaming hashtag, though this is more targeted towards women, a fact that doesn't surprise me.

#WalkUp,NotOut is based around the meme that school shooters were victims of bullying pushed too far. It came into vogue in the wake of Columbine, but neither Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold fit into the bullying victim profile.

If you read their writings, the shooting at the high school was planned to be a mere errand on a long swath of mass murder, which would culminate in them crashing a plane into a skyscraper. I've heard Harris and Klebold summed up as the Psychopath and the Depressive. Harris is the one labeled the psychopath and likely took advantage of Klebold's Depression and anger issues, so he'd have a partner-in-crime on his campaign and thus, create more destruction. Also both Harris and Klebold bragged about bullying other kids and from what I can tell, to the extent they were bullied, it's because they were NFBSKing creepers who worshipped Hitler and walked up and down the hall, giving Nazi salutes.

There's something similar with the Parkland asshole. In an attempt to derail debate about guns, they've tried to paint him as a bullied kid lashing out, but there is plenty of evidence that this jagoff wasn't just a poor, misunderstood kid, as shown in this New York Times editorial written by a survivor of the shooting and for those favoring a shorter version, this post of Facebook. Before anyone objects to me posting a Facebook post, said post does have sources. Though even if it turned out that the Parkland students were all just the worst bullies ever, it would still be NFBSKing wrong to shoot them.

Though now with this mass shooter and the Incel in Canada*, they've decided to place the onus on women, which doesn't feel too surprising. I know there's no point in ranking prejudices, that debating who is more oppressed is a waste of time, but I honestly wonder if out of all the various prejudices out there, hatred of women wins above all others.

Because as I've already said many times, to the extent that mass shooters suffer from a mental illness, it's one called Entitlement. Pretty much all their manifestos or whatever writings they leave behind, can be summed up as "I haven't been given everything that I rightly deserve just for being me, so I'm going to take it out on everyone. It's their fault my life sucks, not mine!"

And again, looking into their backgrounds, mass shooters invariably have domestic violence charges or just an overall history of being a jagoff who harasses women in general. Heck when it comes to the latest one, the family of a victim has come forward, saying that the shooter had been harassing her for ages. A sample quote from the linked article:

Shana Fisher, a 16-year-old student, was one of the 10 killed in Friday's attack at Santa Fe High School. Her mother said the shooting followed four months of advancements from the suspected gunman, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, 17, which could point to a potential motive.

She "had four months of problems" with Pagourtzis, her mother, Sadie Rodriguez, told the Los Angeles Times. "He kept making advances on her and she repeatedly told him no."

But Pagourtzis continued to get more aggressive, Rodriguez said.
A week before the shooting, Fisher embarrassed him in front of others in a class by standing up and telling Pagourtzis that she wouldn't go out with him, Rodriguez told CNN.

Since the shooter said afterwards, that he targeted people he didn't like, it's not too hard to see why he might have gone after her. Because how dare she reject him for whatever reasons!

Yet again, if she went out with him and he abused her or killed her, they would be all "Why didn't you leave?!" Even if he killed people while she was dating him, the blame would be placed on her, whether she knew anything or didn't, even if she was abused. Apparently, since she wasn't an all-knowing girlfriend wife psychologist counselor rehab specialist preacher teacher Madonna virgin whore sexy mother figure**, whatever crimes are her fault. She should have known what he was doing and redoubled her efforts to be more saintly than Jesus.

And frankly, I am pretty much done with these people. Plenty of people go through their life, not getting laid, yet they manage to not kill innocent people. Even if all these killers had had girlfriends, even if they were all tens, it probably wouldn't have stopped them, because giving an entitled jagoff what he wants, never works. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, and they will always blame women and society for all their problems in life rather than take a look in the mirror.

That's something that keeps getting me with so many of these mass shooters. One, there are a surprising large number of lone wolf White Boys going on killing sprees. Like it or not, White Males are responsible for the vast majority of these shooting sprees. And two, when it comes to them, the motivator comes down to Entitlement, rather than anything else. They rarely seem to represent any other ideology beyond "I'm not getting what I want."

*I know that Incel plowed a car into people, rather than emptied a gun, but given that he shares the same poisonous ego, the same overweening sense of Entitlement, I felt it was okay to lump him in with the other mass killers.

**Consider it a list of all the parts women are expected to play for men, whether they are romantically involved or otherwise, as demanded by MRAs and Sexists propagating this BS.

***As said in other threads, I will continue to go out of my way to avoid saying the shooters' actual names, because I'm a big believer in Wonderella's Some Asshole Initiative. I don't know how likely we'll get anything done, regarding gun control, but maybe we can at least manage that.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

The law already prevented this particular asshole from owning any guns as he is only 17 and someone has to be 18 to own a rifle or shotgun (21 to own a handgun). As you said, the guns he used were his father's gun so any gun removal law would have to have included removing any guns in the person's residence or ones that he would have access to.

Or, the law could hold the gun owner criminally liable for not properly securing the weapon and ammo.

[Kermor]

And now this :

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44373028

Because swatting is a very good way to advance your cause, of course. Bastard !

[crocoduck_hunter]

The media (and everyone else) desperately needs to stop calling SWATting a prank and start calling it what it really is: assault.

[thorny locust]

It's assault on the victim; and, while the police are responding to the fake call, they're not available to respond to a real one. People could die on either end. Filing a false report to the police is generally illegal, and can be a felony depending on the circumstances.

It's not going to stop David Hogg, though. I don't think there's much of anything that's going to stop David Hogg, at this point. (Hmmm. Wonder how long before he's 35?)

[Mouse]

I know nostalgia is a dirty liar, but goddangit, it was refreshing that during the Columbine era, gun nuts at least had enough decency to not attack the survivors and victims. It’s such a low bar, the most basic standard of human decency, but the fact that few gun nuts can manage to pass it...A somewhat related Pinterest link

[diddy]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

The media (and everyone else) desperately needs to stop calling SWATting a prank and start calling it what it really is: assault.

Worse... If you call a SWAT team to a house, they don't know what is going on and if it's described as an active shooting situation or a hostage situation, the SWAT team might be inclined to bust down a door and shoot the person. I would say that the people who call these in are attempting to possibly get them killed given how a confused homeowner might not know how to handle a SWAT team when he has done nothing wrong. I can see that leading to a firefight where cops can get killed too.

[thorny locust]

diddy, that's not just a hypothetical. It's happened.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/30/us/ka...ing/index.html