Mass Shooting in Plymouth UK.

[CriticalGaming]

I had to do a double take, because I assumed this was another US shooting. What happened guys i thought ya'll didn't even have guns in the UK?

 

[Xprimentyl]

Not necessarily. You don't need to be deranged to be a terrorist. If anything, very intelligent people can commit terrorist acts.

Yeah, you kinda do. Even smart, lucid people can commit acts that are universally considered "terroristic." See the entry for "psychopath" in any dictionary. No rational person goes out and bombs a building or burns down a church while in any state of mind most would consider anything other than deranged.

Um, that's true, but religious terrorism does exist, just as non-religious terrorism does as well.

Agreed, but qualifying their acts by vilifying a greater, nonviolent system of beliefs isn't helpful or informational. What it does, is instill in the minds of those unfamiliar with the belief system that the belief system itself is fundamentally at fault.

Yeah, no. If we can't call a spade a spade, we're getting nowhere.

Islamic terrorism exists. As does terrorism of various other religions, and various other terrorist actions that aren't religious in nature. It's a bad idea to lump all terrorism together regardless of ideology.

And what purpose does calling this "spade" out serve? Oh, it makes me wary of anyone of the Islamic faith, right? Like banning travel from Muslim countries because certain extremist call them home.

Well off the top of my head, because I can't recall a single time that anyone went on a killing spree specifically because "I'm killing them because I don't believe in invisible sky daddies" as their stated reason.

They use those labels, generally when it's seems highly likely the REASON for the attack at all, was motivated by some belief system the killer holds. They don't often call it a christian terror attack, primarily because this country, is predominantly christian, and they HATE it when people point out that they do horrible things, and that their book is filled with horrible shit, that a lot of horrible people use to justify horrible behavior. They instantly call it religious persecution, even when the killer spouts something like "I did it because angels told me to do it, christian angels because armageddon blah blah" We're somehow unfairly labeling it a christian hate crime or whatever. And given how many shitbag conservatives have actually legalized christian preferential treatment in the law, most news outlets just avoid referring to it to avoid any scandal, and potential legal issues.

I understand the rationale, but as I replied to Hawki, it's not informational aside from criminalizing the larger whole. I mean if a guy blows up a building, it doesn't matter WHY he did it; he was crazy. Whether be believed in God, Allah, Jehovah, etc, doesn't matter, and informs me of nothing save for stigmatizing the larger whole that are NOT violent terrorists.

 

[MrCalavera]

I had to do a double take, because I assumed this was another US shooting. What happened guys i thought ya'll didn't even have guns in the UK?

Keyword "another". For the US 5 dead in a mass shooting is like a Tuesday.

I mean if a guy blows up a building, it doesn't matter WHY he did it; he was crazy.

No. I very much disagree with the notion that every terror act has to be a work of mentaly ill. In fact, i believe not being sick helps greatly with preparing a succesful terror attack.
There are also perfectly rational, if not moral, reasons to commit terrorism.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Keyword "another". For the US 5 dead in a mass shooting is like a Tuesday.

That's true. The fact that it was not in the US this time was surprising.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

There's evidence he was vegetarian, not vegan.

Can you provide the quotes proclaiming atheism?

"In early 1937 [Hitler] was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction', and that the Churches must yield to the 'primacy of the state', railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible institution imaginable'"

"[Hitler's] few private remarks on Christianity betray a profound contempt and indifference".

"There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church"

"The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

 

[Xprimentyl]

No. I very much disagree with the notion that every terror act has to be a work of mentaly ill. In fact, i believe not being sick helps greatly with preparing a succesful terror attack.
There are also perfectly rational, if not moral, reasons to commit terrorism.

I didn't say every terrorist is "mentally ill." There are many misguided, delusional people who are otherwise perfectly sane who commit acts of terror. I loosely used the term "crazy" as in "someone not in a rational state of mind." Someone who's been led to radicalize certain aspects of a faith who goes out and commits atrocities congruent with their version their beliefs isn't "mentally ill;" they're stupid, easily led and dangerous... crazy. Google "Trump supporters."

And what's a "perfectly rational, if not moral, reasons to commit terrorism?" Any act that leads to death of innocents (and we're talking terrorism here, not "Sophie's Choice,") is not rational unless you're lending credence to the terrorist who, by definition, has a purely selfish motivation.

 

[McElroy]

These people are told the world, and especially women, owe them something. And it's people like Sargon of Akkad and Stephen Molyneux that regurgitate this shit over and over. Dipshits like Tim Pool blaming not being able to get a date on women being feminists.

I dunno much if anything about Molyneux, but Sargon is a very "trad con" type when it comes to what men and women are and that often turns to a lot of gender role stuff. Feminists are into the same thing but usually a little differently, and so that gives rise to conflict. Tim Pool isn't alone calling that feminism creates problems for dating: feminist women do that too. To put it short, the latter bunch of course thinks it's because men are stuck in their ways, while Pool (I assume) and Sargon would say feminism has put men and women against each other.

Sargon definitely doesn't tell men that they're owed something. He is clear about men's role in a relationship being hard. So failing to live up to that is probably just more reason for an incel to hate himself.

 

[happyninja42]

I understand the rationale, but as I replied to Hawki, it's not informational aside from criminalizing the larger whole. I mean if a guy blows up a building, it doesn't matter WHY he did it; he was crazy. Whether be believed in God, Allah, Jehovah, etc, doesn't matter, and informs me of nothing save for stigmatizing the larger whole that are NOT violent terrorists.

...it doesn't matter WHY someone did something? yes...yes it very much does. Because people do a lot of terrible things BECAUSE of how they view the world. The bottom line is, religion conditions people to view the world through a skewed lens, that doesn't comport to reality on any level, and then they use what they've been told is important by that religion, to go out and do things. Anything from voting to restrict rights of other people because their book says those people are simply sinful for existing, to blowing up people because their book says those people are sinful for existing. It's all the same shit.

So if someone blows someone up BECAUSE they believe in god, or allah, jehovah, etc as you put it, then it VERY MUCH does matter what they believe! Belief systems don't just govern which house you go into weekly to fork over 10% of your earnings, they color the entire way you view the world, how you interact with it. How you view things as good and bad, and what types of behavior are good/bad, and what you are justified in doing as a result.

The idiots on 1/6 did what they did, because they BELIEVE that trump is some divine savior, and so their actions were justified, the assaulting of other humans, killing a few of them, attempting to kidnap and do other things to duly elected government officials. It's ALL because they believe something that isn't true.

And just because they did something doesn't make them crazy. Plenty of sane people do horrible things, BECAUSE they think it's ok.

As Steven Weinberg was quoted to say
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

 

[Terminal Blue]

Of course! And neither are women who develop eating disorders as fat and as unattractive as they truly believe themselves to be. It's the bullies and the magazines that teach them these lies. The difference is that these women harm themselves, instead of harming others. You can arguably say that one is worse than the other, and that the mechanism through which is spreads is different, but I think it's reasonable to say that the mechanism behind both are the same: An unhealthy fixation on a failure to meet a societal expectation.

Again, incels literally spend a significant proportion of their time telling each other how disgusting and ugly they are. They bully each other, they reinforce each other's negative self image and exaggerate each other's image-consciousness. They do the same thing to everyone. They are deeply, pathologically obsessed with the idea that a person's inherent value is related to their appearance, especially women.

Incel killers often talk about the ways women have "bullied" them. In reality, it generally comes down to those women existing, being pretty, having too many friends, having boyfriends and, above all, not showing interest in them. Sometimes, as in Elliot Roger's case, the women who "bully" them have little memory of them at all.

So, I have ADHD, and one part of having ADHD is being unusually sensitive to the way others see you. I know what it's like to experience deep emotional pain because you have a crush on someone who doesn't reciprocate it. I know what it's like to believe that everyone is laughing at you and hates you for the unforgivable failure of admitting being attracted to someone. I can even, sort of, imagine someone with less self-awareness imagining that they are being bullied in these moments, but they're not. They're just not. Experiencing a pain doesn't mean you've been bullied, often it just means you're bullying yourself (something I also know a lot about) and the absolute last thing you want to do, if you're the kind of person who bullies themselves easily, is to outsource that bullying to someone else, much less a community of internet sad boys who have turned that kind of self-abuse into a lifestyle.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I dunno much if anything about Molyneux, but Sargon is a very "trad con" type when it comes to what men and women are and that often turns to a lot of gender role stuff. Feminists are into the same thing but usually a little differently, and so that gives rise to conflict. Tim Pool isn't alone calling that feminism creates problems for dating: feminist women do that too. To put it short, the latter bunch of course thinks it's because men are stuck in their ways, while Pool (I assume) and Sargon would say feminism has put men and women against each other.

Sargon definitely doesn't tell men that they're owed something. He is clear about men's role in a relationship being hard. So failing to live up to that is probably just more reason for an incel to hate himself.

Saying feminism creates problems and making video after video about it is the problem. It's this culture among young, disillusioned men that Pool, Akkad, Molyneux, The Quatering, but also women like Lauren Southern and Candace Owens have vigorously cultivated. This is NOT a case where both sides share equal amount of blame.

 

[Xprimentyl]

...it doesn't matter WHY someone did something? yes...yes it very much does. Because people do a lot of terrible things BECAUSE of how they view the world. The bottom line is, religion conditions people to view the world through a skewed lens, that doesn't comport to reality on any level, and then they use what they've been told is important by that religion, to go out and do things. Anything from voting to restrict rights of other people because their book says those people are simply sinful for existing, to blowing up people because their book says those people are sinful for existing. It's all the same shit.

So if someone blows someone up BECAUSE they believe in god, or allah, jehovah, etc as you put it, then it VERY MUCH does matter what they believe! Belief systems don't just govern which house you go into weekly to fork over 10% of your earnings, they color the entire way you view the world, how you interact with it. How you view things as good and bad, and what types of behavior are good/bad, and what you are justified in doing as a result.

The idiots on 1/6 did what they did, because they BELIEVE that trump is some divine savior, and so their actions were justified, the assaulting of other humans, killing a few of them, attempting to kidnap and do other things to duly elected government officials. It's ALL because they believe something that isn't true.

And just because they did something doesn't make them crazy. Plenty of sane people do horrible things, BECAUSE they think it's ok.

As Steven Weinberg was quoted to say
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

Not arguing the veracity of any religion. I myself am a self-proclaimed agnostic. I'm arguing that for the millions of non-radicalized Muslims out there, stigmatizing their faith by labeling acts of terrorism as "their faith" terrorism is damaging and unnecessary. You don't have to look far or dig deep to see people whose prejudice has been cultivated in media qualifying "Islamic terror" while white John Smith over there was just an anomaly, troubled childhood or mentally unstable, poor baby, so unfortunate; with help, he might not have shot up that theater. But the Muslims? Yeah, that's just what they do.

I'd probably be satisfied if the label was "religious-radical terrorism" if it's even necessary to know why crazy people do crazy shit. That way, I'd know it was an act carried out by an adherent to their version of "whatever" without assigning it to the specific faith MOST adhere to without finding calls to violence between the lines of whatever text they've read and been told how to interpret.

 

[Bartholomew]

No rational person goes out and bombs a building or burns down a church while in any state of mind most would consider anything other than deranged.

Soldiers do those things, (perhaps with the exception of churches) but they have a "good reason" for doing so, along with the support of their country. Perhaps soldiers may all be deranged, but I don't think that's a popular view.

And what's a "perfectly rational, if not moral, reasons to commit terrorism?" Any act that leads to death of innocents (and we're talking terrorism here, not "Sophie's Choice,") is not rational unless you're lending credence to the terrorist who, by definition, has a purely selfish motivation.

I thought that the definition of "terrorist" was that someone who commits violence for political goals, not necessarily selfish goals.

If the political goals justify the means, then one could make the case that it could be rational or moral. I'm not making that case, I'm just saying that one could.

 

[happyninja42]

Not arguing the veracity of any religion. I myself am a self-proclaimed agnostic. I'm arguing that for the millions of non-radicalized Muslims out there, stigmatizing their faith by labeling acts of terrorism as "their faith" terrorism is damaging and unnecessary. You don't have to look far or dig deep to see people whose prejudice has been cultivated in media qualifying "Islamic terror" while white John Smith over there was just an anomaly, troubled childhood or mentally unstable, poor baby, so unfortunate; with help, he might not have shot up that theater. But the Muslims? Yeah, that's just what they do.

I'd probably be satisfied if the label was "religious-radical terrorism" if it's even necessary to know why crazy people do crazy shit. That way, I'd know it was an act carried out by an adherent to their version of "whatever" without assigning it to the specific faith MOST adhere to without finding calls to violence between the lines of whatever text they've read and been told how to interpret.

I'd be happy if they were just equal with the brush. I have zero issue with labeling it "islamic terrorism" if it's actually islamic fundamentalists. What I would like to see is for them to equally report it as christian terrorism, and similar.

As to the disparity of justification you described. I agree it's unfair to label the muslims as bad because of their terrorism, and then try and justify johnny white christian as "just having a bad day" I DON'T agree that the answer isn't to point out that their religion motivated them to do this, and that it is fundamentally a bad thing. The good things people like to associate with religion have NOTHING to do with believing in an invisible sky daddy, and are simply people being good because they are empathic, social beings, who understand that looking out for each other, benefits all of us. Nothing about what they teach is unique to their religion, or religion in general, so they aren't being good because their religion is good or correct. They've just attributed basic human decency and compassion, to a dusty book (that pretty much every OTHER faith they don't agree with also espouses, funny that), that happens to pay lip service to being nice to people, in between passages about genocide, slavery, subjugation of women, eradication of homosexuality, destruction of those not like you, etc.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Saying feminism creates problems and making video after video about it is the problem. It's this culture among young, disillusioned men that Pool, Akkad, Molyneux, The Quatering, but also women like Lauren Southern and Candace Owens have vigorously cultivated. This is NOT a case where both sides share equal amount of blame.

I mean there's a point to that but I'd argue it's more down to specific branches because just claiming Feminism creates problems is pointing a rather nebulous grouping of many things together as saying that causes the problem.

There's as an example Chanty Bix who has a habit of showing up to events about mens issue and yelling that patriarchy is the problem and when some-one brought up men's suicide rates she mockingly sung cry me a river in their face. Which has lead to this weird state where "No we can't address the simple issues of an uncaring society towards men until we've made it so fictional depictions of women don't offend any-one".

As a sort of thing that links to this some pubs in the UK and other places started doing mens nights to promote mens mental health as such and get men talking because it's been found men having spaces and women having spaces is important but the presence of men's spaces specifically was seen as sexist old institutions. Thus mens clubs bad but women's clubs good or something.

Then there's the push of "There's not biological difference between men and women other than breasts and genitals" which was being pushed a few years back which harmed medicine because women and men do have different susceptibilities to things due to hormone differences and body structure (women's hips generally are wider meaning they can more easily put their knees together while mens are narrower thus splay out a bit not lead because meat to two veg.

There's a meme about relating to compliments to men vs women.

Part of the issue is a weird refusal to accept men and women could be different and that it isn't just a social construct. Thus refusal to accept the difference we know are present already


Feminism as a whole is not the problem. Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist just a different branch as such. Same with Liana K or Laci Green, What is the problem is some schools of feminism which seem to thin they have all he answers and anything that doesn't agree with them must be wrong and some lie from the patriarchy.

Men didn't become disillusioned because Pool, Akkad, Molyneux and The Quatering said some shit in youtube videos. Men became disillusioned because so often men are blamed as the problem and also expected to be the solution but the men blamed can't solve the issues a lot of the time because we're not the issue, others are who keep presenting themselves as part of the solution keep turning out to be.

It wasn't the guy who comments on how attractive a woman is among his friends that is the issue so much as the Joss Whedon's and Harvey Weinstein's of the world an the irony being the Joss Whedon's and Harvey Weinstein's of the world are often the first to chastise other men for making such comments among friends (not wolf whistling in public) about women.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Soldiers do those things, (perhaps with the exception of churches) but they have a "good reason" for doing so, along with the support of their country. Perhaps soldiers may all be deranged, but I don't think that's a popular view.

If you're talking about soldiers actively engaged in war, that's not terrorism; that's war. Not saying it's good, right or excusable, but it's not for the very specific purpose of instilling fear, pain and loss to an unwitting general populace.

I thought that the definition of "terrorist" was that someone who commits violence for political goals, not necessarily selfish goals.

If the political goals justify the means, then one could make the case that it could be rational or moral. I'm not making that case, I'm just saying that one could.

I'd define terrorism as unsanctioned acts of extreme and mass violence committed by those under a personal belief against a perceived enemy comprised largely of an innocent, non-combatant people. War is unfortunate, but the acts of a military against another country's military are not acts of terrorism.

 

[Silvanus]

SNIP

OK... I mean, none of those espouse atheism. They just espouse dislike for the existing institutions and dogmas of the Protestant Church.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

OK... I mean, none of those espouse atheism. They just espouse dislike for the existing institutions and dogmas of the Protestant Church.

Well that was Atheism at the time as such.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I had to do a double take, because I assumed this was another US shooting. What happened guys i thought ya'll didn't even have guns in the UK?

Nope, we have about 6 privately owned firearms for every 100 people. Very simplistically, shotguns with up to a 3 round magasine and manual action rifles can be privately owned with a "loicence". And black powder weapons. Get your muskets ready!
There are even a few exceptions for handguns and automatics but the rules start getting very fiddly for those.

On "incels" maybe a dual pronged attack of not calling people basement dwelling virgins and convincing people that they can indeed change and work on themselves to become someone that somebody might actually like.

 

[McElroy]

Saying feminism creates problems and making video after video about it is the problem.

I agree it's typically pretty lazy reaction content. The YT algorithms are the problem there.

This is NOT a case where both sides share equal amount of blame.

Times change. There are a lot of things contributing to the gap in interaction, communication, and relationships between the sexes. Feminism is mainstream in the media that these (Pool, Sargon, The Quartering, not familiar enough with the others) content creators react to. Sure, if everyone just agreed to do things one way there would be less discord, but y'know, need more than good luck with that.

 

[Silvanus]

Well that was Atheism at the time as such.

But it's explicitly not atheism. He espoused a belief in the Christian god, denounced atheism, and created a Protestant Church.