Was this incel morally justified in his actions when he used his bushmaster xm-15 assault rifle to butcher nearly thirty six year olds?
Was this incel morally justified in his actions when he used his bushmaster xm-15 assault rifle to butcher nearly...
Violence is the only legitimate way for the working class to have their voice heard in America. Instead of condemning people who lash out, condemn the system that creates these conditions
I'm conflicted here
On one hand, he brutally slaughtered little kids
But on the other, his life was really hard..
he died a very preventable death so there shouldn't be lore around him
Because when life has got you down, you confront the masters of the universe, a bunch of random first graders.
We could easily prevent school shootings if we didn't have a society built around inequality and exploiting the many for the benefit of the few.
All tomorrows looking mf
that's a good sentiment to have, i agree with you.
This is from Lanza's "manifesto":
This feral method is present in every interaction that children will have in the rest of its life, but there is a more complex mechanism available. Once the child is old enough, it becomes infected with language. It is primarily through this mechanism that cultural values are transmitted. This is euphemistically referred to as 'teaching', as they grow older children are progressively given more and more freedom, to the extent that they'll contribute more and more to the propagation of the dominant cultural values." "Some parents might say: 'but I can allow children to flourish free from coercement, so that they can become themselves', or something like that. Sure, you might not teach your child religion, but what are you going to do when you realize that your child isn't going to speak your language? Or that it doesn't want to wear clothes? Or violates the cultural system of property rights? And just, in general, isn't abiding by the structure of your society? It's impossible to be an egalitarian parent because you will inevitably coerce your child into behaving in ways which are within the culturally defined parameters. That is the entire purpose of children under any culture. You're not doing your children a favor by bringing them into existence, children exist solely for the propagation of the values of the adults who own them. Your culture has taught you language, art, religion, rights, morality, your activities, cultural context for interactions, the economic structure in which you live, innumerable compartmentalized metaphysical categories of everything imaginable. And do you think that you're somehow a neutral observer when you dismiss a cult for applying manipulative tactics?
His attack was also philosophically motivated.
I've... I've always reacted with terror to culture. I've always had a problem with authority figures and I would call authority, um, a source which tries to impose values onto you. And so, whenever I would interact with someone in an authoritative position, I would always be eager to punish myself and hit myself and say how much I deserved to be tortured and that kind of thing. And I think the reason why I used to do that, even though I didn't understand it at the time, I think it was because I wanted to try to mitigate um... their, quote 'discipline' of me, even if it was a situation which they wouldn't even be doing that, it's just interacting with an authority figure would upset me greatly.
So, I did that so that they would say 'wow this kid is fucked up, I'd better not mess him up anymore'.
I used to think that it could be possible to have children and not discipline them, because I perceived values at potentially having some degree of validity, and I would think 'why do you need to coerce a child into behaving in certain ways when you can use reason?' But you can't use reason because culture, there, there is no reason involved, cultural values are not reasonable. Culture, the only way that culture can spread is through coercion, and so that's why parents, even egalitarian ones, focus on the word 'discipline' because there's no other way to go about spreading these lies because children will instantly reject them. A child can see that all of this is nonsense, and that's why they go through this terrible-two's stage, when they're toddlers they're incessantly miserable and it's... children don't, offspring don't naturally rebel against their parents like that.
You don't see chimpanzee toddlers freaking out about their...they have scuffles, but they don't have this rebellion against their parents. And the reason why this rebellion exists in humans is because this cultural infection is being involved, they're trying to rebel against this indoctrination process but of course, they always end up succumbing to it in the end and no longer see how delusional it is, and even still I.... I don't entirely see how delusional I am, because I still have this notion that even though I nominally recognize that it's false, I still have- operate under this belief that it's possible for value, different values to be more valid than other values.
Women should feel ashamed. If they would've just put out these things could've been avoided. Every death lies lightly on the shoulderers of succbi but they understand not that all of them will be merely a pebble in the pond of traumas Foids have caused.
so he was a schizo
Young Lanza's drawings make me so sad
Poor kid
Depends on what you mean. He was likely superior or genius level IQ with no delusions or paranoia. If you mean schizo as in a complete freak with extremely odd, but extremely rational beliefs with sound reasoning (though appalling) then yes he was extremely schizo.
His reasoning is interesting and his justification was (likely) to save the kids from what he calls "cultural rape":
You don't care about children, I do care about children. You're the one who wants to rape children, I'm the one who wants to save them from a life of suffering that you want to impose onto them. You're the one who sees them as your property, I'm the one who wants to free them.
I mean if this is truly what he believed he didn't save them he just put them down like a sick dog. He apparently thought that education itself and socialization itself made people beyond saving, if he truly thought their deaths were a preferable alternative than being socialized
Why kill the kids? Why not just get them all on a bus or something? I guess feasibility is a factor here but fuck man how can he have a major point in regards to systematic corruption and then just arrive at the most banal solution imaginable?
pseudo-intellectual slop, as is usually the case
Only correct answer. Statists are mad as always.
Does anyone have the uncensored crime scene photos?
That nigga ain't even real...
Yeah, well, neither was January Sixth
Life-apologists btfo
fake and gay shooting
I'm not joking, I truly believe in what I said.
he was saving them from being indoctrinated into the system. read his manifesto again
i know that feel, lanza..
Naw, it's pretty sound. It's only "pseud" because of all the big academic words
then just arrive at the most banal solution imaginable?
This is where glowies come in, when you dig into the Sandy Hook shit, a lot of shit in it glows unironically. The way it was handled is really sketchy and certain "evidence" wasn't lining up.
For some reason because of the way you worded it I imagined him going out of his way to hunt down a bunch of thirty five year olds a week before their birthdays.
genius level IQ
i would only be led to believe so because his writing style is quite overelaborate and makes him seem more intelligent then he actually was. ive read some of the stuff he has written thats publicly available to and i believe that he was definitely an unconventionally minded man with ideas worth looking into but the truth is hes been confirmed to have an iq in the average range, though i would probably speculate on the higher end of the median (maybe 110-114) judging by his articulate manner of speech.
To be honest, these two would have made a nice couple.
Socialism doesn't work.
Has the Sandy Hook Internet Defense Force shown up yet to claim this event was 100% real and true
Originalino
Jeez what a fucking bummer that guy is, I guess it's a happy ending because he didn't appear to like life that much anyway
Only correct answer. Statists are mad as always.
Your position is the pro-statism one.
mushroom boy?
i didnt really care for his philosophy i just hate children
This is the ACTUALLY red pilled take on the matter.There's a reason the culture war was created artificially, to keep people from doming their landlords with AR-15s. Instead you're forced to pick between Blue team (absolutely no means to physical violence other than maybe pepper spray) and Red team (has the means to violence but kisses the boots of their landlord and would use their weapons to actively defend them from a threat, followed by giving the landlord and additional tip)
Thats pretty funny. What was his philosophy though I've literally never seen this guy till now
To oversimplify it, he was a moral nihilist with a fixation on culture. He viewed enculturation and socialization of moral values as a kind of rape, but furthermore he believed that there was not really a default blank slate "self" to fall back on if the process of enculturation did not occur. He formerly believed that there were two layers to the self, the first being the "feral" mind, the second being the cultured one after the feral mind is "raped" into submission.
Finally, like all moral nihilists, Lanza fell into one of these two groups:
1. Moral nihilists that dedicate almost all of their time explaining why pedophilia is not wrong.
2. Moral nihilists that are strangely silent on the topic.
Lanza, unsurprisingly, was not silent.
So he wrote all of that and then came to the conclusion that killing children was the right thing to do, without knowing what kind of lives they were living in.
A psychopathic nutjob.