Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Connecticut Shooting

Connecticut Shooting
December 15, 2012, 04:56:58 PM
Most people will analyze the shooting by trying to "figure it out."
I offer you something different.  I analyze by analogon.
Most people will say "ban guns."
I say:  ban school!
Most people will say "if he did not have a gun, they would not have been killed."
I say:  if they had not been at school, they would not have been killed.  You cannot deny that this is not true!
Only living people think death is a problem!
Death is a symbolic stake more than anything else.  Death doesn't actually "happen!"

Below, in audiofile, Metal Hall user "gevatterhein" has a signature that reads:  'The sooner you die the longer you're dead.'

I can not tell you how brilliant this man is!
If more is better, and faster is better, than it only makes sense that, as far as death is concerned, it is better to die sooner!
The faster you die, the better!
If only it were possible to be more dead than dead!
If only we could die over and over and over!

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 15, 2012, 07:17:52 PM
From initial reports on the gunman, he fits the profile.  A smart but socially maladjusted white male in his male 20s with no discernible future.  It is interesting to think about what can cause people with this tendencies to develop.  With no connection to community or friends and largely ignored by his peers, someone in this situation has very little external reasons to not go postal.  With the prevalence of this in our society, I am surprised their aren't more shootings like this.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 15, 2012, 08:06:12 PM
Leave it to an asspie to start a new genre of shooting spree.

That's how most people will look at it. Just another "episode" in the unique genre of their lives. Time to go back to work.

Hopefully for the middle class white man, this will seriously attack at him and make him question just how much is each American "with us."

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 16, 2012, 01:51:15 AM
... how most people will look at it.

Ostracize the perpetrator

blame non-root causes

repeat the process next time.

Cry like you mean it

Current trends indicate a ‘next time’

Does the process solve the problem?

Not if there’s a ‘next time’

Maybe it’s not a problem

“ok, we’ll do lunch some time”.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 16, 2012, 06:47:25 AM
No one gives a shit about a man's feelings until he picks up a gun.
now this is mostly due to the nature of humans HOWEVER men being raised on equality get the idea that the world gives a shit and then lash out if/when they learn the truth.
in the old days a man would take out his frustration through skills and progress and comradeship with males who are all in the same disposable boat, and would also have a nurturing wife. Now he has little of all of these things and lives in an illusory world.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 16, 2012, 11:20:19 PM
have a nurturing wife

Men will be in constant warfare keeping those numbers down which would keep our women at a good dozen ratio or so.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 01:26:05 AM
No one gives a shit about a man's feelings until he picks up a gun.
now this is mostly due to the nature of humans HOWEVER men being raised on equality get the idea that the world gives a shit and then lash out if/when they learn the truth.

I don’t see human nature as instinctively self-centred. The traditional societies, being smaller and more tightly-knit at least make it possible (if not necessary) to love thy neighbour.

Equality is more of a political prop which in reality means nothing more than ‘individual pursuit of material wants’. People only lash out in a desperate attempt to reconcile this toxic, omnipresent world-of-shit-type realization with their true nature; the desire to love and be loved.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 04:55:10 AM
No one gives a shit about a man's feelings until he picks up a gun.
now this is mostly due to the nature of humans HOWEVER men being raised on equality get the idea that the world gives a shit and then lash out if/when they learn the truth.

I don’t see human nature as instinctively self-centred. The traditional societies, being smaller and more tightly-knit at least make it possible (if not necessary) to love thy neighbour.

Equality is more of a political prop which in reality means nothing more than ‘individual pursuit of material wants’. People only lash out in a desperate attempt to reconcile this toxic, omnipresent world-of-shit-type realization with their true nature; the desire to love and be loved.
naw I think you misunderstood. laws of nature say that men do not get as much sympathy as women(fertile) and children(due to youth). They are expendable.
 In the world of equality men might get the wrong idea that someone will care. Mens rights activists still hold on to the hope that we will get complete equality  In a traditional society they would be raised to be stronger and more self sufficient, not needing to be emotionally dependent.  The debate goes to gun control in these incidents because nobody really cares if he was an aspie, a psychopath, on meds, or why he became crazy. They just wish he killed himself before doing this, and they wish the same for all the other depressed omega males out there.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 03:33:10 PM
If the people here talk so much against the weak, wanting to exterminate them, how come when a person that can not cope with life not only kills self but children, gets attempts at understanding?

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 06:11:11 PM
Explicit equality was always a utilitarian means to get everyone to feel better about their inequality. Individualist philosophy is a means to rationalize the implicit pursuit of inequality. Since it is individual rather than group in scale, it is able to pretend to not come into conflict with our utilitarian group equality. Still, ego likes to come into play, often making the implicit pursuit of inequality explicit.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=floss

Constant tension between ego and envy on mass scale is the result.

1. Ditch the equality pretense
2. Ban anthropocentricism
3. Reintroduce reverence
4. Demote materialism

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 06:45:12 PM
If the people here talk so much against the weak, wanting to exterminate them, how come when a person that can not cope with life not only kills self but children, gets attempts at understanding?
the difference is these shooters would most likely prosper in the kind of society people here envision. Most are intelligent but they go mad because the world is mad as well. In a materialist society, what difference would the age of your victims make? everyone is walking into the same sad abyss. In a society with no tight-knit communities, the children he shot were objects he didn't give a fuck about because there is no framework for that kind of thing.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 17, 2012, 07:40:39 PM
That's exactly the answer I was hoping for. It actually was way more "archetypal" of what I'm talking about than I expected. I did not expect for someone to straight away identify the shooter with the society you envision.

First of all the primary force in society seems to be good, courage, morals, thriving. Or else how to explain all the savings of lives by firemen, rescuemen and others, the building of complex and great buildings, the creation of works of art that are great, the massive and boring work that is necessary to keep things smooth, etc... Now corruption and other stuff are a sign that people are avoiding doing what's necessary and prefering luxury. If this rises, there can be collapse. This is just the way I think. But if there is not collapse yet, if you can get complex stuff light energy, computers, school and health, business, technology, police work, is because people are working hard and dying for this. So this is no excuse to go around shooting children because they are mathematical points in a materialistic universe. This seems to not only be lunacy and cruelty but also diminishes the value, at least in the eyes of the crowd, of the action of truly intelligent and worth-full people who not only do not take out their frustration on others, but also sacrifice for the greater good, and I do not mean charity.

And second, as hard as it is for me to accept, materialism is a somewhat neutral and liquid concept, that is, you can at the same time conclude that nothing has meaning and there is no guilt etc.. and go shooting crazy, you can also get the type of people that are so humanistic as to go around complaining about thieves getting beat up etc. Most materialists, I would think, believe that they have more reasons to care about the loss of life and suffering than others, because they think this is the only experience (from birth to death) that any person is gonna have. On the other hand, knowing that it isn't might make the act of killing people easier.

Not giving a fuck about a child and killing it just because you have no bond with them is a gross error and monstrous. Your envisioned society should never let people take a plane to another continent as they might want to murder the children there for being only objects of loathing and confusion with no connection to him.

I think a society on which the kind of people who would thrive are school shooters would not be made of the better people of courage, wisdom and endurance that the website talks about.

Not that I do not understand what you say: I just draw a line. I have killers that I once admired too and still find their ideas interesting.

And also, I never say I am one of the bright, beautiful, courageous smart people. Just to make things clear.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 18, 2012, 11:48:40 PM
It turns out Adam was one of you "wicked smart" hypersensitive Aspies but more bonkers than the Christcrackers they shove at you at the end of funeral services.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 19, 2012, 06:27:12 AM
It turns out Adam was one of you "wicked smart" hypersensitive Aspies but more bonkers than the Christcrackers they shove at you at the end of funeral services.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/

It says in this article that he was neglected by his mother. She apparently volunteered at the same elementary school and this took up much of her time - in fact the article says that she started liking the kids there more than her own son.

Looks like there may have been another reason that contributed to his insanity.

Re: Connecticut Shooting
December 19, 2012, 09:03:44 AM
First of all I would like to say that in each "school killing" incident I try to understand if it falls in a category, for example the shooting by Pekka-Eric Auvinen can be a pure example of the "desperate smart kid" category, a shooting because of a girl is another category and a shooting like that Batman/Joker shit that happened recently in the US, which really made me laugh my ass off, is pure surrealism. Of course, there can always be overlaps Let me explain:

Imagine that there is a smart kid, John. John will show potential in his very first years, learning stuff easily etc. Before adolescence I believe these kids generally show potential, before they are ushered in more heavy sexual/societal pressures which are handled impossibly wrong by our enlightened modern society. If you think porn, promiscuity, pressure to have trendy opinions, dress trendy, speak with ebonics or whatever is "in" in your country, you are getting my point. So let's assume John also has some X degree of social awkwardness.  It is highly probable that he will not fit in as much as is needed to be happy. Probably he will be bullied because of this. He will not have a girlfriend, will have limeted to no sexual experience, expotentially his sexual frustration will grow so will his alienation and finally so will his frustration. Frustration (in my opinion) tends to manifest it self through desperation and/or anger. If John's character is such that he blames himself he will tend towards escaping to the void, if it is such that he blames "the others" he will tend to hate them, and of course if you hate some people, if you go postal you might want to erase them from the face of the earth. (From what I see Adam Lanza interpreted what I called "the others" as this school, but I am talking in general here, for the hypothetical John).

So it all boils down to what that X Degree of social awkwardness was and by what it was caused. Let's take two extremes and the middle. If it was extremely high and it was innate, he would have probably not fitted into any society and although this society is the perfect one to make him a pariah and drive him insane I would have to acknowledge that his genes/early nurturing might had made him let's say a 'negative' person (someone might disagree since the greatest development and brain rewiring happens in adolescence but whatever)

The other extreme, if he had extremely low X degree of social awkwardness it is fairly clear that external pressures and this alien society made him feel like trash.

I believe most cases fall somewhere in the middle, smart kids with low social skills which find themselves isolated because of perceived 'weirdness' which in the criteria of stupid, crude, social chameleons and other human trash might be just because he doesn't talk trendy or hit on girls with the ratio of the 'alpha males' (some develop sexuality later than others, and by the time they do are already pariahs because they didn't develop it earlier). These 'middle' kids would have fit better in another, more sane society with better values. Low social skills doesn't immediately mean absolute isolation, or let's say shouldn't. In fact I have many friends who during adolescence were just... not loud, for fuck's sake men, and were treated like garbage by bullies, some were still virgins up to their early twenties. I swear that I am not judging lightly, I am not talking about aspies or ugly weirdos etc.

That's all I have to say, and remember I am talking about generally about 'desperate kids who had potential', not specifically about Adam Lanza. I think my post is also an answer to Harry Potter's question.