Elliot Rodgers' 'manifesto': WARNING: potentially disturbing content/trigger

[Ramsay Gimp]

Of course culture is at fault. Who is denying that? The question is, how are you going to solve the issue?

I deny it. Rodgers is at fault, no one else.

[DanteGabriel]

I deny it. Rodgers is at fault, no one else.

Congratulations, you are part of the problem. And I say this without my customary hyperbole.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Congratulations, you are part of the problem. And I say this without my customary hyperbole.

Because I believe individuals (barring insanity or youth) are responsible for their own actions? Because I don't think reading MRA blogs or watching Revenge of the Nerds caused this evil shit to go on a massacre?

Do you also blame video games and Marilyn Manson for Columbine?

[Theda Baratheon]

I don't think it's 'plenty' in a wide context - although any at all is of course something to be concerned and furious about- but it's possibly a question worth asking about how the internet gives these people a platform to form groups where they can find each other and validate their poisonous beliefs in echo chambers like the one in the link Sci posted, in ways which would be extremely difficult in 'real life'.

Not in a wide context, perhaps not, but to be fair, one is one too many in this case.

Even though it's online, it's still really scary.

Yes, and anyone with a bit of intelligence, of either gender, would agree that those are big issues that need to be resolved.

Obviously.

[Prince Alexander]

Because I believe individuals (barring insanity or youth) are responsible for their own actions? Because I don't think reading MRA blogs or watching Revenge of the Nerds caused this evil shit to go on a massacre?

Do you also blame video games and Marilyn Manson for Columbine?

Not necessarily, but possibly. Finding causation is exactly the point of this.

Let's say, theoretically, MM did have brainwashing, zombifying secret message in his songs affecting young men - would you not want to investigate it?

Of course this is an extreme, improbably example, because in real life causation is complex . A person is a mix of their nature and nurture - yes you could attribute an action to nature, but would it not be worthwhile investigating whether it's due to nurture, instead (or some sort of interaction of nature and nurture)?

[polishgenius]

Even though it's online, it's still really scary.

Oh absolutely. I'm not arguing that it being online mitigates it or anything- I'm wondering if the internet has contributed to a rise in, not these attitudes being held, because I'm sure it hasn't, but in places where they can 'safely' air them with other people and therefore feel validated.

[DanteGabriel]

Because I believe individuals (barring insanity or youth) are responsible for their own actions? Because I don't think reading MRA blogs or watching Revenge of the Nerds caused this evil shit to go on a massacre?

Do you also blame video games and Marilyn Manson for Columbine?

None of us lives in a vacuum. Rodger is responsible for his actions. But there is a pervasive belief in culture that treats women as prizes to be won rather than as people capable of individual agency. Did he just decide on his own that women are at fault for not making themselves sexually available to him? This is not about video games or Marilyn Manson but about a pervasive misogynistic values system that is present in all sorts of media.

We can't know if, absent that pervasive misogynistic belief, he would have found some other reason to erupt. All we can do is look at the sentiments he expressed that drove him to such twisted acts, and try to address them. You seem to be saying that it's not worthwhile to examine the culture of male sexual entitlement that very clearly contributed to his anger. That makes you part of the problem. Deal with it.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Not necessarily, but possibly. Finding causation is exactly the point of this.

Let's say, theoretically, MM did have brainwashing, zombifying secret message in his songs affecting young men - would you not want to investigate it?

Of course this is an extreme, improbably example, because in real life causation is complex . A person is a mix of their nature and nurture - yes you could attribute an action to nature, but would it not be worthwhile investigating whether it's due to nurture, instead (or some sort of interaction of nature and nurture)?

I guess my issue is with your earlier statement that culture is "to blame." Cultural factors certainly contribute to everyone's actions, but I firmly believe that individuals alone bear the responsibility. Your Marilyn Manson scenario involves a real loss of agency/responsibility via "zombified brainwashing," which clearly isn't the case in this instance or any other i'm aware of.

To take a less implausible example, let's say someone took inspiration from Marilyn Manson's lyrics, typed out a manifesto explicitly laying out how a certain song had inspired him to kill, and then went on a rampage. Would Marilyn Manson be "to blame"? Or let's say someone got started playing Halo and discovered they liked the feeling of virtual killing and wanted to try the real thing. Would the developers of Halo be responsible for what happened?

[Ramsay Gimp]

None of us lives in a vacuum. Rodger is responsible for his actions. But there is a pervasive belief in culture that treats women as prizes to be won rather than as people capable of individual agency. Did he just decide on his own that women are at fault for not making themselves sexually available to him? This is not about video games or Marilyn Manson but about a pervasive misogynistic values system that is present in all sorts of media.

We can't know if, absent that pervasive misogynistic belief, he would have found some other reason to erupt. All we can do is look at the sentiments he expressed that drove him to such twisted acts, and try to address them. You seem to be saying that it's not worthwhile to examine the culture of male sexual entitlement that very clearly contributed to his anger. That makes you part of the problem. Deal with it.

I don't have a problem with discussing pervasive misogynistic or demeaning beliefs about women. My issue is with using this instance of an isolated psycho as a cludge against perceived opponents The broader discussion is worth having on its own. I just don't see how Rodgers' actions would contribute to that discussion except as a cheap way of pointing at groups/individuals one already disliked and saying "LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!"

It also leads to cramming something into a box where it doesn't belong. (This following is just speculation, I'm definitely open to being convinced otherwise) If we insist on looking at Rodger as part of a pattern, shouldn't it be the "disturbed young men who go on a killing spree against their peers" pattern rather than the "societal violence against women" pattern?

[Larry of the Lawn]

If we insist on looking at Rodger as part of a pattern, shouldn't it be the "disturbed young men who go on a killing spree against their peers" pattern rather than the "societal violence against women" pattern?

Why not both? Doesn't have to be one pattern or another.

[The Marquis de Leech]

We can't know if, absent that pervasive misogynistic belief, he would have found some other reason to erupt.

I think we can take it almost as a given. He clearly thought cars/flash clothes/money/women were things he needed, and were entitled to (he never seems to have been told "no"). With such a mindset, even if he was incredibly successful with women, he'd have latched onto some other status symbol (probably money) and harboured resentment about it.

[Kalbear]

Rodgers is part of a pattern. Hating women enough to hurt and kill them isn't anything new. That he did it a bit more than others is the most remarkable thing - but only so much. Honestly it wouldn't have gotten as much publicity had he not killed random people and men. That's the more depressing part.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't have a problem with discussing pervasive misogynistic or demeaning beliefs about women. My issue is with using this instance of an isolated psycho as a cludge against perceived opponents The broader discussion is worth having on its own. I just don't see how Rodgers' actions would contribute to that discussion except as a cheap way of pointing at groups/individuals one already disliked and saying "LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!!"

I think the people you are arguing against are actually focusing more on his "manifesto" -- which in fact is captured in the thread title. The article I linked, for example, pointed out that the horrible shit he wrote there about women owing him sex is echoed all over the Internet and in our cultural tropes. Obviously the stereotypical misogynistic bro is not a mass shooter, but I don't think there's anything unfair about raising awareness that the views a violent monster espoused are very common and are also responsible for many crimes against women.

Feels like the third or fourth time I've had to make this argument, not to mention many other posters. If you don't have a problem with the discussion of culturally ingrained misogyny, maybe you could just take a short break from your habitual defense of unquestioned privilege.

[Sci-2]

I find it odd that one could separate pervasive misogyny from the shooting.

Even "crazy" people are influenced by their environment. Does one think Satan coincidentally put ideas in Elliot Rodger's head that just happen to be in accordance with the problematic, present aspects of our culture?

[Wise Fool]

The difference between Rodgers and the whole PUA 'culture' and someone who played Halo or liked Marilyn Manson is that the former is not simply some piece of art or entertainment, but a whole mindset. A belief system. An ideology, if you will, whose tenets are laid out in guides and manuals and held by most, if not all seeking such a system and defended, often vigorously to the point of deep animosity. The connection between how Rodgers thought and how the whole PUA shitbags think is much closer than just hey, they both liked some song. Basically Rodgers thought thusly - getting sex is something men deserve; women are the gatekeepers of sex; getting sex makes you a winner and not getting it makes you a loser; and women are therefore the targets, the nailing of which transforms you from zero to hero.

Rodgers couldn't do this, so, by his own estimation and by the estimation of the PUA community, he was a zero, a loser. The anger which he felt resulted from this, and while his obsessive rage and obviously his actions are something for which he can be blamed, I don't think the PUA culture is just some random phenomenon (like how he liked ASOIAF) that can be dismissed as coincidence or irrelevant.

[emberling]

There's also a real black-and-white thinking going on with the Manson/Doom kind of scapegoating. Does it harm our children? YES or NO, choose only one. If YES, demonize and censor.

That's not anything like what we're talking about when we implicate culture as a factor. We're talking endemic cultural reinforcement. Not one band, not one game, not one genre, but something more along the lines of how crowds in movies and TV are disproportionately male*. Something that people are exposed to so many times over the course of their lives that their perception of the world changes to match it. Do we conclude, then, that these movies are misogynistic and should be boycotted, censored, kept away from children? No, that would be ridiculous. We just say: here, this is a problem. Let's see what we can do to make it less of a problem. See if we can get some casting directors or whoever on board, so that future movies do better. In the meantime, maybe a few of us who like to see equality represented get a little less inclined to go see movies.

That's a really tame example (intentionally chosen to be so) that has close to no relevance to actual violence against women. But there's a lot of widespread cultural tropes that do: damsels in distress; women in refrigerators; most relevantly to this case, women as reward for the male protagonist, just because he protagonisted properly. The portrayal of opposite-sex camaraderie (i.e. male and female lead in an action movie working together) as inevitably ending in romance. Just like having a crowd of 17% women, none of these things are out of bounds. No single work is out of bounds, no single work is sexist for including these things. There's nothing to boycott, nothing to keep out of the hands of children. The problem is when these scenarios are overwhelmingly prevalent and alternate scenarios rare. The problem is when a six year old child can already predict with stunning accuracy that those two are going to kiss at the end, because it's so rare that they don't.

It only takes a little break from reality in order to take that message to heart, to see the hero of your story denied what all those movie heroes got just for existing. What if the stories our culture told were more diverse, such that there wasn't an overwhelming message? What if 10% of movies with strong camaraderie between the male and female leads ended with each going home to a loved spouse; and a further 10% featured an attempted romance subplot that ended with amicable breakup? Show some women who say no, and after a while I think you'll get a measurable reduction in men who blame women for saying no, men for whom women saying no isn't part of their worldview. Maybe enough of a reduction that someone who would have killed doesn't.

I don't like the he would have killed anyway, he would have just found another toxic culture to be homicidal about dismissal. I think it's predicated on the idea that his mind was irretrievably broken. Was it? Maybe. We don't know. He had mental health issues - but he wasn't a raving lunatic or a paranoid schizophrenic. He didn't show any less ability to reason than, say, a young-earth creationist or a believer in astrology. The only evidence we have that killing was inevitable is the fact that he killed. Is everyone who is capable of a killing spree inevitably going to go on one? I doubt it.

*According to this the ratio is 5 men to 1 woman, but my google-fu isn't strong enough to find the study itself to verify. I suspect that the actual average may be less skewed.

[Solmyr]

RE: 'What influenced dear dead elliot to lost his shit and how do we prevent more such incidents'

I somewhat agree that culture and society are to blame, but I use the terms with a much broader meaning than just pop culture, mass media and lifestyle. Like emberling said, censoring or boycotting movies, songs or other forms of art that portray misogyny, violence or segregation would not solve the problem. The problem is not that people are exposed to these things on TV or in the theatre, rather the problem is that some people seem incapable of making a difference between art and the real world.

The way to remedy that is to make sure that people, especially kids and teens, gets exposed to as wide as possible a variety of culture. Let it watch movies with violence (at the appropriate age), but also take it out in the real world and show it stories about victims of violence in the real world. Drive home the difference between murder/rape in a movie and in the real world. Teach empathy instead of apathy. In a perfect world we would not need laws and enforcement to protect ourselves from violence, for people themselves would not wish to commit it, due to realizing what the consequences of said violence are for their fellow humans. We're far from there yet, but we won't get there with stricter laws, harsher punishments, censorship and restriction of freedom.

[Lyanna Stark]

Because I believe individuals (barring insanity or youth) are responsible for their own actions? Because I don't think reading MRA blogs or watching Revenge of the Nerds caused this evil shit to go on a massacre?

Do you also blame video games and Marilyn Manson for Columbine?

No, because you think Rodgers existed in a vacuum where nothing influenced him. Just ask yourself: why did he have entitlement issues when it came to women? Why was he misogynist? Was it random? The fact that he wrote a horrifying misogynist manifesto is then not related to the killing spree?

I play loads of computer games. Some of them are ok, some of them are problematic in various ways. Some people will be negatively influenced by them as part of our larger culture. Video games in isolation is not a direct cause and effect thing, but they take a spot in a larger culture and society where misogyny is ingrained and accepted in certain areas. Like men's entitlement when it comes to women's bodies and women's sexuality.

Whether you want it or not, we are all products of our culture and our society. Unless you were brought up by robots in outer space?

I don't like the he would have killed anyway, he would have just found another toxic culture to be homicidal about dismissal. I think it's predicated on the idea that his mind was irretrievably broken. Was it? Maybe. We don't know. He had mental health issues - but he wasn't a raving lunatic or a paranoid schizophrenic. He didn't show any less ability to reason than, say, a young-earth creationist or a believer in astrology. The only evidence we have that killing was inevitable is the fact that he killed. Is everyone who is capable of a killing spree inevitably going to go on one? I doubt it.

*According to this the ratio is 5 men to 1 woman, but my google-fu isn't strong enough to find the study itself to verify. I suspect that the actual average may be less skewed.

It's so much easier to just claim that he was evil and/or mad instead of seeing what you have in common with someone who behaved like a monster.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I keep trying to read this manifesto but damn, it's a fucking chore.