OT Active shooter reported at grocery store in Colorado: Boulder police

[bulls_with_booz]

"incel" is a term that that community created for themselves, not a pejorative that the mainstream came up with to mock people who "can't get laid." The term itself is incredibly stupid--involuntarily celibate implies that someone else is forcing this circumstance upon them, which is why the incel community is synonymous with rage against women. They believe women are locking them out of the sex that they want and deserve.

Virgins were individuals. They had their own story. You could offer them advice, or they could bring it up to their counselor or therapist without the same level of shame. With incels, they've completely walled themselves into an echo chamber asylum of meme science, rage and self hatred. Stuffing their heads with useless information like Tinder experiments and mass shooter manifestos. It's just a rotten word if you care about the well being of young men.

 

[MickZagger]

I don’t think being a mass murderer has anything to do with not getting pussy.

Its sociopathic behavior caused by some kind of chemical imbalance. They’re fucked up people.

 

[RoseCityRebel]

Got those receipts

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Got those receipts

You need the tweet:

 

[RoseCityRebel]

Twitter is the pits of the Internet. How do people spend time on this shit site? It’s pretty much all misinformation as people rush to get exposure, even if it’s totally false.

 

[RoseCityRebel]

Daddy seems to have perhaps radicalized his son?

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[julius]

"incel" is a term that that community created for themselves, not a pejorative that the mainstream came up with to mock people who "can't get laid." The term itself is incredibly stupid--involuntarily celibate implies that someone else is forcing this circumstance upon them, which is why the incel community is synonymous with rage against women. They believe women are locking them out of the sex that they want and deserve.

Thing is, people who aren't sexually active (be it by choice or whatever), are made to feel inferior (at a younger age, the older you get the less people give two shits).

I think that's where these people get a lot of the insecurity from.

Now, calling themselves "incel" is weird, since they're pretty much losers regardless of whether or not a woman touches them ro not.

 

[RoseCityRebel]

That's the kind of experience people who are in prison should thrive for. Clearly, not everyone has the strength to do that, partly because prisons are driven by profit, power, and control. That and the belief that there's no chance to rehab anyone, or it's not worth the time, etc.

I met that guy in Washington Co. jail so I know some about it.

 

[jonnyboy]

I don’t think being a mass murderer has anything to do with not getting pussy.

Its sociopathic behavior caused by some kind of chemical imbalance. They’re fucked up people.

Some pussy couldn’t hurt though.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Some pussy couldn’t hurt though.

They can't get any because they are fucked in the head. Getting some won't change a thing. If Muslim shooter did get some pussy, he wouldn't know how to handle it and will become obsessive or physically abusive.

Georgia white religious loser mass shooter paid for sex (hand jobs probably), felt bad about it and thought he should kill the asian women who provided the services to him.

Muslim Democrat mass shooter couldn't get any and went into incel rage. Killed random white people at a supermarket.

Both cases the dudes are fucked in the head and shouldn't be out in society at all. Lock them in a looney bin.

Pattern is similar in both. Young males who are socially awkward and have deficiencies with the opposite sex which resulted in a violent meltdown. As are most of the mass shootings.

 

[MickZagger]

They can't get any because they are fucked in the head. Getting some won't change a thing. If Muslim shooter did get some pussy, he wouldn't know how to handle it and will become obsessive or physically abusive.

Georgia white religious loser paid for sex (hand jobs probably), felt bad about it and thought he should kill the asian women who provided the services to him.

Muslim Democrat mass shooter couldn't get any and went into incel rage. Killed random white people at a supermarket.

Both cases the dudes are fucked in the head and shouldn't be out in society at all. Lock them in a looney bin.

Muslim shooters can’t have sex until marriage.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Muslim shooters can’t have sex until marriage.

They can get dat azz tho.

 

[Lanny]

He has a bad day so we all have a bad day. I wonder if he knows he's doing this.

 

[THE HCP]

 

[Natebishop3]

Can you even imagine the outrage if someone tweeted that comment about any race other than white guys?

 

[Minstrel]

Can you even imagine the outrage if someone tweeted that comment about any race other than white guys?

It's almost like white guys aren't at risk of being marginalized or oppressed in our society. Let's get black and brown people to the same level of social safety and then they won't be able to justify outrage over comments regarding their race. Win/win.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's almost like white guys aren't at risk of being marginalized or oppressed in our society. Let's get black and brown people to the same level of social safety and then they won't be able to justify outrage over comments regarding their race. Win/win.

Liberals: We want equality! (While also simultaneously not treating people equally!)

Blah blah blah racism is okay if it's against white people.

 

[Minstrel]

Liberals: We want equality! (While also simultaneously not treating people equally!)

Blah blah blah racism is okay if it's against white people.

Not what I said, but you continue with your "white people are the real oppressed people now" pity party.

Maybe someday history will recognize your plight in hindsight, even if people in the present (aside from some who share your white grievance) continue to turn a blind eye to your tragedy.

 

[Natebishop3]

Not what I said, but you continue with your "white people are the real oppressed people now" pity party.

Maybe someday history will recognize your plight in hindsight, even if people in the present (aside from some who share your white grievance) continue to turn a blind eye to your tragedy.

No. At the end of the day I want everyone held to the same standards. You do not. You make excuses and justify people posting hateful things. You're the one in the wrong here. I think any racism is wrong and should not be tolerated. You think racism against white people is okay as long as "black people and brown people aren't at the same level of social safety." And when exactly will that be? Who decides when things are squared up? Sorry, I don't put caveats on racism or bigotry. It's wrong on any level by any person.

Period.

 

[Minstrel]

You think racism against white people is okay as long as "black people and brown people aren't at the same level of social safety."

When did I said racism against white people is okay? You're just so deep in your feelings about how much white people are victimized, you read in what you want.

The rest of your self-righteous rant is invalid based on your incorrect assumption above.

 

[Natebishop3]

When did I said racism against white people is okay? You're just so deep in your feelings about how much white people are victimized, you read in what you want.

Because a normal person would say, "that's true. Racism is racism and wrong is wrong." Not make excuses or justifications.

 

[Minstrel]

Because a normal person would say, "that's true. Racism is racism and wrong is wrong." Not make excuses or justifications.

You didn't ask if it was wrong. You asked why the difference in outrage levels, so I explained it to you.

Where you went with it was just your emotional need for someone to say "yeah! white people are the true oppressed people today" not being met.

 

[Natebishop3]

You didn't ask if it was wrong. You asked why the difference in outrage levels, so I explained it to you.

Where you went with it was just your emotional need for someone to say "yeah! white people are the true oppressed people today" not being met.

When have I ever said that white people are the truly oppressed people today? I'm talking about a different set of rules and standards. There is racism all over, but only one form is racism is publicly okay and carries zero repercussions. So if you think it's wrong for me to point that out, sorry, I'm going to keep doing it. I just want people to be held to the same social standards. I want it to not be okay to be racist against anyone, regardless of their color.

 

[Minstrel]

When have I ever said that white people are the truly oppressed people today?

Here, basically:

There is racism all over, but only one form is racism is publicly okay and carries zero repercussions.

------------------------------------------------------

So if you think it's wrong for me to point that out, sorry, I'm going to keep doing it. I just want people to be held to the same social standards. I want it to not be okay to be racist against anyone, regardless of their color.

I don't think it's morally wrong for you to say it, I just think you're wrong as in incorrect. Racism isn't "publicly okay" against anyone--but there's a reason why racism against people who are actually at risk in society is considered much more concerning than racism against people who are not at any particular risk. That's just common sense. That doesn't make it okay to be racist towards white people, or acceptable, but racism towards certain people has a much higher damage than towards certain other people.

Do you also consider it an example of racism towards white people that hate crime legislation focuses on crimes against historical targets of bigotry and doesn't apply to crimes against white people?

"Equality for all" doesn't mean turning a blind eye to the fact that some people in this society currently face violence and obstacles that others don't. This comic does a good job of explaining it:

 

[Natebishop3]

Here, basically:



------------------------------------------------------



I don't think it's morally wrong for you to say it, I just think you're wrong as in incorrect. Racism isn't "publicly okay" against anyone--but there's a reason why racism against people who are actually at risk in society is considered much more concerning than racism against people who are not at any particular risk. That's just common sense. That doesn't make it okay to be racist towards white people, or acceptable, but racism towards certain people has a much higher damage than towards certain other people.

Do you also consider it an example of racism towards white people that hate crime legislation focuses on crimes against historical targets of bigotry and doesn't apply to crimes against white people?

"Equality for all" doesn't mean turning a blind eye to the fact that some people in this society currently face violence and obstacles that others don't. This comic does a good job of explaining it:

So you disagree that there's a different set of rules? That woman said "violent white men are the greatest terrorist threat to our country." Is she going to lose her job? Are there repercussions for her? That's Kamala Harris' niece right there. Has Kamala come out and denounced her tweet? My point from the beginning is that if someone in the public eye had done something similar, assumed a violent act was a POC or made a statement that violent POC are the greatest terrorist threat to our country, they'd lose their job. They'd be "cancelled." So if someone is allowed to make statements like that without any repercussions, it's the same as saying it's okay. It's the same as endorsing that kind of message.

You're still making excuses for this kind of attitude.

You brought up hate crimes. So if someone walked up and shot a white person because they're white, should that not be charged as a hate crime? Or are you going to make excuses for that as well.

 

[Minstrel]

So you disagree that there's a different set of rules?

No, I disagreed that racism against white people is acceptable in our society. Of course there's different feelings for racism against marginalized segments of society versus racism against the secure segments of society. Again, it's common sense that attacking the weak is considered much more deplorable than attacking the powerful. Have you never heard of the difference between punching up versus punching down?

You're still making excuses for this kind of attitude.

It's not excuses for racism--racism is never acceptable. It's understanding that the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong. It takes a remarkable inability to see past your own bubble not to understand that.

 

[Natebishop3]

No, I disagreed that racism against white people is acceptable in our society. Of course there's different feelings for racism against marginalized segments of society versus racism against the secure segments of society. Again, it's common sense that attacking the weak is considered much more deplorable than attacking the powerful. Have you never heard of the difference between punching up versus punching down?



It's not excuses for racism--racism is never acceptable. It's understanding that the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong. It takes a remarkable inability to see past your own bubble not to understand that.

My mom always said I was remarkable.

You didn't answer my question about hate crimes though.

 

[Minstrel]

My mom always said I was remarkable.

You didn't answer my question about hate crimes though.

I thought my post addressed it:

"It's understanding that the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong."

So, murdering a white person because they're white is hate, yes. "Hate crime" legislation adds extra punitive measures for crimes of hate towards minorities because the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong. Black and brown people are far more likely to be assaulted or killed for their skin color than white people are. Hate crime legislation simply recognizes that and tries to add further protections in the form of more disincentive. White people (in this nation) largely don't need that extra layer of protection but, if it happens that they are murdered, their murderer will still face charges so it's not like they're left unprotected.

 

[Natebishop3]

I thought my post addressed it:

"It's understanding that the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong."

So, murdering a white person because they're white is hate, yes. "Hate crime" legislation adds extra punitive measures for crimes of hate towards minorities because the politically and socially weak need and deserve many more protections than the politically and socially strong. Black and brown people are far more likely to be assaulted or killed for their skin color than white people are. Hate crime legislation simply recognizes that and tries to add further protections in the form of more disincentive. White people (in this nation) largely don't need that extra layer of protection but, if it happens that they are murdered, their murderer will still face charges so it's not like they're left unprotected.

Ok, so you (and really anyone I ask this to) can't provide me with any kind of answer for when things will be made whole. How do we know when that will be? Is there a realistic line that we need to hit? By 2045 white people will become a minority in the United States. Is that the line? Or will that not matter because of wealth distribution?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-...ecome-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/