Jack the Ripper targeted prostitutes and mutilated their genitals and breasts (among other things). How is that not sexual violence ? He didn’t rape them if that’s what you meant, but his crimes were almost certainly motivated by and intrinsically featured a heavy sexual component.
And this guy’s immediate motivation in this was apparently his largely self-inflicted sexual deprivation. He hated women for not giving him sex, and other men for getting sex, and killed several of both for it. That’s “sexual violence” too.
Only if you water down the term into meaninglessness. It’s sexually motivated violence, but not sexual violence.
(and even then, ISTM he was more motivated by an supremely inflated sense of self and entitlement than sexual frustration per se - generally speaking, “sexually motivated” tends to equate with “I got my rocks off on it”)
A lot of people, including myself, have had a similar reaction. But after reading the so-called “manifesto,” I think it’s clear that the reason the video seems funny, (almost insincere), is that it’s essentially very scripted. He had been rehearsing this language in his mind so much that he was effectively reading it back to the camera. He fancied himself a wordsmith, apparently (though his usage was often inept), and wanted to be sure certain phrasing would be in the video.
In other words, he didn’t associate with anyone because he didn’t think anyone was of a high enough social status to do so.
I used to work with a woman like that. Somehow, she managed to find TWO men to marry her; the second husband is the father of her children, and she’s totally the type who’s probably hoping at least one of them is autistic so people will, like worship her or something. :dubious: Last year, she went through a seriously ugly divorce, and everyone totally sided with her husband even though the festivities kicked off with her filing a restraining order against him. Reading between the lines, it sounds like she’s also a really bad alcoholic.
for the kids.
A friend of mine works near the area where the shit went down. She said that the place is crawling with news crews trying to interview shocked and grieving students.
Disgusting.
You know why we’re not blaming minimal car laws? Because we don’t have minimal car laws. Cars are one of the most heavily-regulated consumer products in this country. Everything, from who can operate them, to insurance requirements to safety features is regulated. If a legislator seriously proposed regulating guns the same way we regulate cars, the NRA would throw a fit. Your post is stupid and immoral.
Are there regulations that would reduce the number of people someone using the car as a weapon could kill?
Uh, yes. If you hit someone with a car and they hit your windshield, the windshield isn’t going to shatter into shards of glass that will cut right through them. That protects both drivers and people who get hit.
If someone shows up at their doctor in California, and the doctor determines that they aren’t fit to drive, the doctor can start a process to yank their license. A psychiatrist could certainly start the process to yank the license of someone who was under treatment and exhibiting violent tendencies.
I can do a whole list of these. Yes, people get killed by cars. But we have an immense amount of regulations to reduce the chances of that.
Afraid so too. The whole of the incident cannot be reduced to “Poster Boy for Misogyny”, as the whole of the scene so far points to someone who could not bear for the world to not drop at his feet and hand him satisfaction in every area of existence just because he showed up. The early media reports of his published/YouTubed rants made a big deal of the parts dedicated to whining about women not giving him some lovin’, but that could be attributed to it being a very obvious and easy to point out sign of what a disturbed loser we’re dealing with, and to vulgar sensationalism, not to a careful analysis.
The frame of reference for people to claim a “reason” lo lash out violently at the world can be sexual, political, racial, economic, religious, etc., and yet in the end the majority of entitled pricks manage to not go out on mass murder sprees, *whatever *grinds their gears.
ETA for the Pit: So fuck 'im, he couldn’t even rise to the level of the average entitled prick.
Cool, so the driver will not be hurt and can continue driving and hitting more people. Nice.
God, what a thick-headed moron you are. You asked if there were regulations designed to reduce the chances of someone getting killed, and I provided you with two of them. You got your answer and now you are trying to weasel your way out. What an immoral shithead you are.
You’re just darling.
No, idiot, that is not what I asked.
Yes, idiot. It is and you got your answer. You thought you had some clever gotcha, but what you’ve actually shown is that you know absolutely nothing about car regulation. I’ve given you two regulations: one which reduces the chances of someone getting killed if the car is used a weapon and another which reduces the chances of a car being used as a weapon in the first place.
But this is the thing thick-headed assholes like you can’t get through your thick skulls. We have a department of the Federal government that continually studies car deaths and then proposes and adopts regulations to reduce car deaths from all sources (accidental, intentional, everything). And we’re going to get more. The Eurozone has adopted a bunch of new pedestrian-design safety regulations for cars, and that’s going to be the next big push in the US. And once those regulations are adopted, they will also reduce the chances of someone getting killed by a car. On top of that, most states continually amend their driving regulations and safety precautions in response to dangerous situations as they come up. So, we have an ongoing process to evaluate car deaths and come up with ways to reduce those car deaths.
But the immoral shit-head gun nuts won’t even let the Federal government study gun deaths, let alone propose regulations to reduce them. And when we try to discuss regulating guns, lying assholes like you waltz in pretending that you know about car regulations when it’s clear you don’t know the first thing about them. People die, and instead of trying to find constructive solutions you rely on lies and stupid fake gotchas. What a disgusting person you are.
I don’t know . . . Yeah, this guy was an asshole in general, but just a brief glance at the “manifesto” and it seems that in the end, not getting a girl was fundamentally the primary thing fueling his self-entitlement, and that degenerated into hatred toward women more than anything. (The lottery thing was just his plan to get a girl.) He also said that that if he were to get one, he’d call off the killing.
In the conclusion of his pathetic screed he justified his “retribution” with this summary:
He went on to describe how a perfect world would eliminate all women except a few for reproduction.
That seems pretty misogynistic, if you ask me, and as the explicit justification for his actions, I wouldn’t discount it.
No, cretin, what I asked was regulations that would reduce the number of people someone using the car as a weapon could kill. What you gave me was the regulation that would actually increase the number of people someone using the car as a weapon could kill.
No, it wouldn’t, and your reasoning is so stupid, that I’m not going to bother to respond to it. You’re a disgusting asshole.
Oh, but in case anybody (who’s not lying scum like Terr) is interested, here’s another car regulation: the hoods and bumpers on modern cars deform on impact. Which means if a pedestrian gets hit by a car, their rate of injury and the severity of injuries is going to be lower (as compared to older cars, which you could run through pretty much anything without any deformation). This is basic physics. It also means that if someone decides to use a car intentionally to kill someone, then their ability to do so is lessened compared to older car designs.