Search Box

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Adam Lanza II

There has been a lot of speculation over the past several days about exactly what mental disorder Elliot Rodger had.

Although what he did was despicable, he didn't give off most of the usual signals of sociopathy. If he had been a sociopath, he certainly would have been a more skillful seducer. He would have come across more confident with those who knew him. And he would have been a master manipulator.

Though all serial killers are almost by definition sociopaths, mass murderers often are not (they are more likely to be psychotic, or otherwise disturbed).

When I first saw the infamous video, I was a little surprised that (a) he was that interested in girls, because he looked awfully gay, and (b) that he was rejected by so many of them, since he was sort of pretty, if in an effeminate way. He actually reminded me a little of Rudolf Nureyev, the Russian dancer who died of AIDS in 1991 -- and whom women were crazy about back in the 60's and 70's:

Rodger did not lack for delusions of grandeur: “I am Elliot Rodger . . . Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent . . . Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god….On the day of Retribution, I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure."

Delusions of grandeur often go hand in hand with a paranoid personality, but can also just be the ramblings of someone who is extremely narcissistic. The "living god" bit actually verges into psychotic (divorced from reality) territory.

He also said, towards the end, that he realized that the reason girls didn't get with him was not because he was inferior, but because he was a superior being.

(I too would like to believe that all the girls who ever turned me down did so because I am superior; reality, however, compels me to admit it was far more likely because I'm inferior.)

I heard somewhere that Rodger had been diagnosed with Aspergers a few years earlier. This made sense too; it certainly explained why he was unable to get any girls: they wanted nothing to do with a guy who was so awkward. (An Aspie like Rodger or Adam Lanza has ample reason to hate a world which rejects him.)

But then I read that Rodger had never been officially diagnosed with Aspergers, though his family suspected that he was on the spectrum. (I think they're right.)

Then I heard Roissy's theory, that Rodger was in fact gay and trying to cover it up with his elaborate manifesto. This too had a certain logic: it explained his femininity, and his never having been with a girl. And why would he bother to make those Youtube videos beforehand, if not to convince the world (and maybe himself?) that he was heterosexual? That was an expensive coverup, what with seven people having to give their lives  to further it.

(There was a lot of homosexual and also child pornography found on Adam Lanza's computer, though the mainstream media did their best to downplay that angle.)

Roissy also mentioned the racial angle, and refers to the fact that mixed race people are more likely to have mental illnesses. This is the link he provided to make that point (although the writer of the linked piece actually argues mildly against this thesis).

But Rodger's manifesto seems too painfully honest in too many ways to just be a coverup. He talks about his feelings of inferiority, how he hated being short, his dorkiness, his shyness, how he was bullied, his jealousy of tall blond surfer guys, and how he felt left out.

He also mentions his Eurasian heritage frequently. I can't help but think of Andrew Cunanan, the Eurasian serial killer who murdered Giorgio Armani, and Jack Abbott, the Eurasian prison writer who briefly became a cause celebrate back in 1981. (Within a month of having been freed thanks to the efforts of Norman Mailer and others, Abbott killed another man.) I don't know exactly what the numbers would have to be, but it is my impression we Eurasians are now overrepresented in the mass killing sweepstakes.

In any case, after all this, I'm still not exactly sure what to make of Rodger, other than that he was not a standard issue sociopath. He probably did have Aspergers; it's possible he was also gay. I was originally going to guess borderline personality disorder, but I don't have a good enough handle on exactly what that entails for it to have been a particularly educated guess.

He wasn't quite crazy enough to be psychotic, though his warped perspective on what his social life should have been and how people would react to his killing spree were pretty far removed from reality. But that may also have just been the cluelessness engendered by Aspergers.

The killer Rodger reminds me most of is Adam Lanza. Lanza was such an all around dweeb (to use a not strictly DSM term) that he didn't spark any copycat killings. For essentially the same reason, hopefully, neither will Rodger.


Steven said...

I watched a couple of his videos and read some of his autobiography/manifesto and he seemed extremely narcissistic to me. He was basically saying that he was gorgeous, magnificent, a perfect guy and he just wants women to adore him and he will punish them for not adoring him. That sounds like narcissism to me.

Its like he was angry at the world for not conforming to his views of himself. Its almost like it offended his ego that women didn't like him.

He felt completely entitled to have them because he was worthy of them and women not being interested was therefore a crime and injustice that had to be punished. He felt he was the good guy who had been wronged and he was getting his retribution. That's a crazy level of entitlement.

He also expressed some scary level of hatred for humanity, saying he would kill everybody if he could. In his perfect world, he would be leader and he would intern all women in concentration camps and starve them (because if he couldn't have them nobody can). That fantasy of having power and thinking you know best how to run things is a narcissistic trait.

But its really weird that if he wanted women so much he would not fantasize about being powerful and thereby having all the women he desires. Instead he would kill them? Perhaps this was a fantasy coming from his hatred or perhaps his ego was offended by the thought they didn't really desire to be with him (he had the money for expensive call girls and hookers. That's the one detail I think is kind of weird and may be used to support a gay hypothesis, which by the way I don't really believe- he seems too honest to me. I take him at his word but who knows- he was intelligent.

Also, in this day and age in California, why would he be so bothered about being gay?

Anyway, narcissism and hatred were the two things I got strongly from him.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I completely agree, there was no question that Rodger was extremely narcissistic. The thing is, that kind of narcissism can accompany a host of other syndromes or illnesses. You find it in people who are sociopaths, also in bipolars, also in people with borderline disorder, as well as just garden variety narcissists. So what was he? I'm just not sure.

And no question he was full of hatred as well. But that, too, can pop up in a host of personality types, including normal people without any discernible syndrome. (Who among us has not felt hatred?)

The fact that he had no clue how to get girls -- and figured they should just flock to him based on his appearance and BMW -- shows that he might have had Aspergers as well. So I'm at a loss as to exactly how to classify him.

Whatever he had, it added up to a witches' brew of lethal dysfunctionality.

Chris Mallory said...

The words used to describe the murders of the 3 roommates, "Horrific, brutal" and the relative lack of news about the crime scene immediately made me think "homosexual murderer".

The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton reports:
“ Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation...

"Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings..." Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962

Written accounts by street cops usually call homosexual murderers some of the most brutal and disturbing.

Steven said...

Feminist writers in the Guardian claiming that Elliot Rodger's misogyny is endemic to western society and his ideas are the norm.

He wanted to have all women interned in concentration camps and starved to death for the crime of not finding him attractive so that civilisation could evolve beyond the impurity of sexual desire.

*scratches head*.

Can you fucking believe it? Seriously.

John Craig said...

Chris --
I've heard the same thing about homosexual murders, that they tend to involve a lot more mutilation, and that New York City cops could almost always immediately tell whether a killing had been homosexual in nature by the amount of mutilation involved.

In this particular case, though, I suspect that Rodger hated his roommates for the usual reasons that one would not get along with one's roommates. Also, the two roommates were both Chinese by descent, as was the third guy, a visitor, whom he also killed. And that doesn't quite square with his obsession with blond surfer dudes and blonde sorority girls. I think he just wanted them out of the way before he went on his rampage.

Steven said...

This is my comment on the G website:

Elliot Rodgers narcissism and sense of entitlement were not normal. Is it normal to want to murder women because they don't adore you like you think they should? Is it normal to consider oneself a 'magnificent gentleman' and a 'perfect man' and want to kill women for the crime and injustice of not agreeing?

His hatred for women was not normal. He wanted to have them all interned in concentration camps and starved to death where he could watch from a tower and say 'if I can't have them, noone will'.

Now lets read this quote again: "Regardless of Rodger's mental health issues – which we still don't know much about – his ideas were not "crazy" by the standards of the world today. They are the norm."

Arguing against these idiots is not even sporting anymore.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The Left in this country has gone completely loony. There was a black woman writer, Brittney Cooper, who wrote this in Salon:

"How many times must troubled young white men engage in these terroristic acts that make public space unsafe for everyone before we admit that white male privilege kills?"

The fact that the Left would use an obviously disturbed guy like this to score political points is symptomatic of how desperate and deluded they are. it reminds me of how they used the schizophrenic Jared Loughner as an example of "right wing hatred" when he was obviously just plain crazy.

Steven said...

wow you might have just one upped me there. That doesn't even make sense.

That writer I quoted surely never even read his manifesto, which is pretty sloppy for a professional journalist. But even to think ordinary misogyny is the norm is stupid. Do most men hate and dislike women? I don't think so. Its more normal to love and like women. But they use words like endemic and misogyny and it sounds fancy and intellectual.

John Craig said...

Steven --
People like Brittney Cooper who can't think for themselves tend to subscribe to systems of thought, whereby they swallow all the dogma of that point of view and their only method of discourse is to spew it back.

Another writer, for the Washington Post, evidently blamed the Rodger massacre on the movies of Judd Apatow and Seth Rogen, which teach impressionable young males that schlubby-looking average guys can get beautiful women.

I can only wonder, did Apatow and Rogen realize they were committing murder when they made those movies?

Bob Wallace said...

Self-hate covered up by grandiosity: narcissistic.

Anonymous said...

When you look at the picture of this killer, he looks creepy, dark. He's too serious, lacking a lightness, softness in his face. How does someone get this way, but, possibly by dwelling on and maintaining negative (dark) thought patterns.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Good to hear from you. Honestly, when I look at that face, I don't see anything other than a pouty, petulant young man. And I actually do see a certain "softness" engendered by his having been spoiled. (What is a 22-year-old doing driving a BMW his parents bought for him and thinking it somehow makes him better?)

But I think all of our opinions are colored somewhat by what we know of him.

If he had given his life to save other people in some emergency, I think we mint be tempted to see soulfulness behind those eyes.

Anonymous said...

Elliott Rodgers strikes me as an angry person, society paying a price for his anger. It's unfortunate that this latest killing spree took place - there have been so many in the past several years - a person isn't completely safe anywhere. Mental illness (having seriously deranged people in our society) is a terrible reality for all of us.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
No question he was angry. And yes, unfortunately there will always be people who want to take out a generalized revenge on society. But hopefully he was such an obvious loser that he -- like Lanza -- will not inspire any copycats.

Steven said...

I know you like Jeopardy. Arthur Chu, 11 time Jeopardy champion in March 2014, wrote an article about geeks and Elliot Rodgers and he wrote all the things about Seth Rogen movies and he talks about "the fruits of our cultures ingrained misogyny laid bare for all to see".

Perhaps he was talking about geek culture (?). I don't think we can accuse this guy of being stupid. Got me wondering if I'm missing something. I just judge by my own experience of the men in my large family and the men I know and have met and it doesn't seem like a hatred and dislike of females is normal to me such that you would describe it as being ingrained in the culture. It seems to me like most normal men like and love females. Am I naive? I'd like him to explain to me what exactly this ingrained misogyny is. Any thoughts?

A female friend of mine who lives in Croatia wrote to me yesterday "you're really a nice guy, ste and i can see why it's hard for you to wrap your brain around men despising women. but trust me that i see it all the time."

She's talking about low level put downs and degrading of women because they speak their mind or don't meet sexist expectations, stuff like that, which I wasn't sure is really misogyny. I don't see it in this country and I'm pretty sure my sister doesn't experience it. Again, am I missing something?

Steven said...

Oh here is the article:

John Craig said...

Steven --
I think a lot of what gets called "misogyny" by feminists is actually just men pointing out that women are not suited for the infantry, or are less logical, or less rational, stuff like that which is true but which they don't want to believe. And there is the "disparate impact" kind of "misogyny," where women don't achieve as much and it's considered "discriminate."

But there is a subset of men who are remarkably ugly toward women. They will use any opportunity to put them down for their looks, or their sexuality, or anything they can think of. I've known some of these guys. The thing is, most of these guys are just as ugly tower other guys, but the other guys don't complain about it as much and don't see it as being directed at them because of their gender. I remember my last boss on Wall Street, who was unquestionably a sociopath, who would remark on various women's looks with great bitterness, as if their lack of attractiveness was some kind of personal affront to him (I'm not exaggerating). And sometimes he would say these things so that the woman could hear him. I can see why they would get the impression that he hated women. But he was in fact just about as ugly toward other men, constantly cutting them down for their perceived lack of masculinity (when they didn't do what he wanted them to), or their stupidity, etc.

So, yes, your female Croatian friend has undoubtedly seen some guys who act in a condescending and arrogant way towards women, but my guess is that practically all of those guys have a similarly inhumane attitude toward other men as well.

Steven said...

That makes sense John (2nd and 3rd para). Interesting insight.

As for the first paragraph, I feel like people should be more mindful that misogyny means hatred and dislike and possibly distrust of women. Its obviously used too loosely if those are the things people mean by it. It just sounds like a silly accusation inferred from somebody's sexism or perceived sexism.

How much less rational do you think women are? Their IQs are about the same as men's on average, possibly a few points lower. IQ is very much to do with reasoning ability which leads me to believe they must have reasoning abilities pretty much on par with men and whatever their IQ suggests (tho I read we the male range is larger- more idiot and genius males). Are you suggesting they are in some way not using their reasoning skills because they are more emotional and intuitive? I guess that's what you mean, right?

John Craig said...

PS -- I read the Chu article and yes, I do remember him from Jeopardy. (He achieved a certain brief infamy for going straight to the third and fourth questions in a set in an effort to uncover the 'Double Jeopardy" questions. He has some points. He also seems to take a lot of these comedic movies and TV shows a little too seriously, like that Washington Post feminist who said that Elliot Rodger's action was a direct outgrowth of all those Seth Rogen-Judd Apatow movies where the schlubby guy gets the beautiful girl. (She took movies too seriously too.) It would never have occurred to me to have a debate with someone about whether in that Revenge of the Nerds scene where the nerd gets the girl by wearing a Darth Vader mask and pretending to be her boyfriend that constituted rape or not.

The thing about nerds is, the way they're perceived is often purely a function of their looks. I know guys who follow some things extremely closely, to the point of meekness, yet are not perceived that way because they're big and good-looking. Rodger wasn't a nerd so much as would-be, frustrated playboy who had no idea how to actually be one. He got called a nerd because he was small and weak, but was he an obsessive Trekkie or anything like that? Not that I know of.

John Craig said...

Steven --
It's been my experience that women in general are less logical. Case in point, which I just happened to be discussing with someone last night: women are much more likely to consult psychics. The guy I was talking to named several women he knows who have either consulted psychics or believe in astrology. You just don't seem to find as many men who indulge in that kind of silliness (and take it seriously, as some women do).

You're right about the IQ statistics: men have a wider, less tall bell curve, with more idiots and geniuses. One theory as to why all the great inventors etc. have been men.

Steven said...

When I heard about that scene, I did actually wonder if it constituted rape.

thanks for your time answering my questions. Its a good blog this, I'm surprised you don't get more commenters.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thank you. I have been getting more readers recently; if I got many more commenters, I wouldn't be able to answer them all.

Bob Wallace said...

Those who knew him said the way he acted on the video was not the Elliot they knew. They said he wouldn't look people in the eye and stared at their shoes.

John Craig said...

Bob --
That does sound like Aspergers (Aspies are well known for having a hard time looking people in the eye), and if his family thought he was somewhere on the spectrum, he probably was.

Pavonine99 said...

You know, Rodgers and Lanza remind me a lot of Dahmer. All three looked like they were somewhere along the asbergers spectrum. I think it's possible (though rare)to be both a sociopath and an aspie. Asbergers/autism is described as a lack of cognitive empathy: they have a hard time understanding why someone feels upset, for example. However, almost all have normal affective empathy; if they come to understand that they've hurt you, they feel bad. A psychopath is just the opposite, they can understand how you feel from an intellectual standpoint, but they don't care. I would think that someone could have a deficit/lack of both kinds of empathy, and that could describe all three of those killers.

John Craig said...

Pavonine --
I honestly don't know what to think about that. I wrote about it here after the Lanza shooting:

As i said in that post, Aspies are in some ways the opposite of sociopaths in that they would be the least successful manipulators around. But the existence of a Lanza and a Rodger would seem to give the lie to that theory.

As far as Dahmer, I never saw the Aspergers in him. I saw him a couple of his jailhouse interviews on TV, and he didn't strike me as an Aspie. But now that you mention it, I guess that whole bit about wanting the dead bodies to keep him company so he wouldn't feel lonely is weird enough to be something other than normal sociopathy, so who knows.

Anonymous said...

He didn't have Asperger's. He was a disturbed kid obsessed with high status and having "the girl" to match it. He was completely out of touch with reality. He was apart of a woman hate group and complained so much about women. His problem was with himself and not being in touch with reality and that you can be a shy guy and have all the finer things, but that is not what women want. Women don't want a guy who throwing in their face, "I have this I have that." Women won't mind a shy awkward guy, but he comes off very obsessive and abusive.

And remember he is half Asian, he was probably around his mother a lot. And Asians have a submissive attitude, so looking away and not talking much is apart of the personality. That doesn't mean he has Asperger's.

And I read some of your other stuff. What is your issue with those who have Asperger's? You come off as someone who hates them, but yet you come off as someone who has Asperger's.

John Craig said...

Anon --
His own family bought he was on the spectrum. And his cluelessness about what would attract women is in fact typical of autistics.

As far as his Asian mom, weren't you the one who railed against me for stereotyping in a recent comment on my post on Aspergers? I agree that Asians tend to be more submissive, but if you're so deadset against stereotyping Aspies, shouldn't you refrain from stereotyping yourself?

Also, to characterize a description of a mental disorder as "stereotyping" is ridiculous. It's a little like saying that anybody who says that sociopaths are dishonest, disloyal, and impulsive is "stereotyping" sociopaths. "Stereotypes" exist for a reason.

I also find it quite interesting that your worst insult to me is to accuse me of having Aspergers. You remind me of a recent gay commenter whose worst insult to me was to accuse me of being gay.

Anonymous said...

But just because he was suspected doesn't mean anything. Not a lot of people have any clue what Asperger's syndrome is rally about. People only know of the negative stereotypes. And all the other oddiest and quirks they go through, people see it as negative, because they aren't being mindful. People with Asperger's don't do what he did. And besides, Aspergers isn't a reason why someone would kill. A person with a mental disorder or not, can kill just as easily and just as violent or worse. He did what he did because he as diluted and out of touch with reality. I don't think he has Aspergers. And sorry to break it to you, but most guys are clueless when it comes to women, don't try to kid yourself on that one.

And I don't know what you are talking about. But okay, if you want to talk about stereotyping. You seem to be doing that. It's quite odd and well, makes you come off very small minded. I would never judge a group of people based off one experience or he said she said bullshit. It just makes you look petty and again, small minded. I read some of your stuff, and all you do is stereotype people. It's almost like you hate them, even though most of them look like you or I.

But I didn't come here to argue with you. I'm sure you have plenty of people that have tried to tell you that you are being wrong for stereotyping or whatever. Especially towards people who have Aspergers Syndrome or is Autistic.

But hey, you are going to do you and that is not my problem. Just try to be more mindful and come from a better place of understanding. But if you feel that you are, then okay.

Who am I to judge?


John Craig said...

CK --
Your grammar, spelling, syntax, and logic all speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

*sigh* I hope that one day you can realize what you are doing.

You write blogs, but yet you get defensive and try to "squash" a persons comment because you assume they are attacking you.

So I had a couple grammar mistakes, who cares. It's 6am where I am, and I type fast and miss a few things.

But not everyone is going to agree with everything you have to say. And when I read a blog, especially someone who has so much as you do, you're personality comes through.

People judge, and I am judging based off what you write and how you write it. Especially when you are talking about murders, homosexuals, people with Asperger's syndrome, or any other disorder. You talk down on them. You judge them. I wanted to think that you were a troll at first, but after reading so much of your blogs, you just judge. It's a shame.

But like I said, I can't judge you on your personality. Since I don't know you. I can only judge what I read and assume, just as you do. But I would never judge you as a person, like you do with so many.

Just stay mindful.


John Craig said...

CK --
Your hypocrisy and dishonesty are overwhelming. You don't judge?! That's all you do. I do too, but I admit it. And you're against stereotyping, if it's directed at your group, Aspies, but you do it yourself when it comes to Asians. Yet you don't even see your own hypocrisy. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

I wasn't even being dishonest with you. How can I be dishonest with you if I am trying to have a honest, mature conversation with you about the things you write about?

I said I won't judge you based off your personality because I don't know you personally. I didn't say that I didn't judge because I stated that I can only go off what you are writing, just as you do.

But I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and hoping you weren't assuming things about me, but it's clear now that you are. You assume I am Asian. And you assume I have Asperger's. Why? What is your problem with assuming things about people, especially people who are online? Is it because I don't judge those who are different from me? Because I stand up for those who are being hated for no reason? I mean why assume things about people you don't know, and then on top of that judge them??

I was just trying to have a mature conversation with you about your blogs and you want to assume everything about me. No wonder why people are doing what you do, assume you have Asperger's Syndrome. You act like it. And I can only say that based off how you are coming at me and how you write your blogs. And the fact that I live with someone who has Asperger's Syndrome. So again, I am not surprised that someone would assume you have it.

So why don't you check yourself and your hypocrisy. It seems to me that you don't even realize what you are doing and how you come off to people. I wasn't even attacking you, and then you have toe nerve to pretty much call me a liar and assume things about me. .. Wow... I'm just dumbfounded by how people can be online.

I try to stay mindful with you and try to understand different points of views. But you give me nothing to understand, you just judge me and everyone else that doesn't agree with you 100%

So I'm done having this conversation with you. I thought you were intelligent. I thought you were mature. But it's clear you're not. You have issues that you need to sort out. And I hope you can figure them out. Maybe you can figure out why you are so obsessed in talking down on people, judging people, and writing about Asperger's Syndrome, narcissistic individuals, and sociopaths and talk about them as if they are human-beings.

Some people you just can't have real conversations with, why do I even try. I guess I try to stay hopeful that maybe there is more to what they write. But you are something else. All you care about is you and your opinion and your narrow mindedness.


John Craig said...

To anyone who happens to read these recent exchanges --

"CK" is someone with Aspergers Syndrome who is enraged that in my original post on Aspergers (datedAugust 18, 2011) I described them as they are. If you read his comments here carefully, you'll see they are typical of someone with the syndrome.

Anonymous said...

I left a comment previously on another post and decided to look around more. One thing I noticed on the posts seems to be the same thing repeated generalisations and half truths. Anyone can make a theory or fact up and anyone will believe it. I draw attention to what seems from the writing and thoughts on this blog from various people a dislike for homosexuals, anyone with a mental disorder or anyone who doesn't fit into your (some posters) perspective world view.

I Don't mean any disrespect but are you autistic or have been diagnosed with any mental illness john. From what I see is a defined rigid world view of people and their place in the world. From what I have read I could say that you are an autistic closeted homosexual man, with a grandiose messiah complex who likes to pass judgement on others and believes women are illogical critters who can't seem to function properly (probably all autistic or have aspergers)

But that would be a GENERALIZATION as I mentioned on another post. I don't know you or even believe that what written above is true I wrote it to illustrate the journey from A to B is often not a straight line and by jumping to conclusion based what people have read or seen you often don't get the real picture.

Case in point Elliot Roger I Don't think we will ever know if or what mental illness he had, but the speculation and labelling should stop. Its a disservice to people who quietly live there lives with mental illness to be tarnished with the same brush (accusations of autism, aspergers, even depression can't tell you how many times I have heard people call others weak because of it) as all you have to do is type in personality disorders or mental illness on Google to get people talking about something they know nothing about. Anyone can gather obscure facts to support their arguments. For instance one might read this post and jump to the conclusion that I'm a preachy, entitled prick. But you will infer what you want to see in my post. All I ask is people keep an open unbiased mind on a side note studies have shown an increase in mental illness and pollution think of all that mercury and particulates in our little bubble of space (did I make that up?) In conclusion best of luck with your blog.

Anonymous said...

He is a gay, it's plain and clear.

Anonymous said...

He was never rejected, because he never approached A SINGLE ONE.
I read his manifesto, he never once asked a girl or went up to one, he just went to a starbucks or the beach and sat for hours waiting. There was a mention he was given an anti psychotic which he chose never to take. I wonder what would happen if he took it, still a loser but maybe rendered docile and controllable enough to not attack people.

Anonymous said...

Looking at your posts, this must have been an older you since you got a bit riled up (or maybe I am misreading it all, I am not very accurate with interactions), since I would imagine you would just tease CK until he ran away scared.

There is one thing you did get wrong, you claimed he was upset because you "told the truth about how they really are".
That is incorrect. He was upset because his ASD (I'll just use ASD instead of aspergers, autism, or pddnos since it's broad, or I'll call it SSS for selfshutting mindsickness) was went after. To a pridester, SSS is the most important thing, not people with SSS.

Someone with autism sexually abused or beaten by a gang of bullys? Cricket chirps from them (or maybe one post somewhere with a few replies, but then forgotten).

But a commercial or advertisement saying something like "autism is hurting your child, we want to help him/her!"? The ad will get pulled after entire brigades of spammers attack their sites or fill their inboxes with mail.

They don't care about autistic people's human rights, they only care about autism.
Ironically, being a bit more narcissistic, selfish, or egotistical in a productive way, as in thinking about YOU yourself would be a step up than the worship of a syndrome. It's incredibly disturbing and disgusting, it's sorta masochistic, believing your are subserviant to your autism. Like any pride (not to be confused with rights) group that cares more about the indentity instead of being themselves. Are obscene gay pride parades getting any human rights for gay people in the middle east? Of course not, they don't even let them happen there anyway.

To add, thinking of yourself in a productive way is beneficial and is beneficial also for social justice. If you think of yourself, you will not think of your skin, gender, religion, tribe, clan, or sexuality. Not denying they exist, but if other's think of themselves, society will have lower percentages of prejudice. If a black person robs you, you bring him to court, if he says "black people are being oppressed! You are hurting us!" the risk of associating all black people with crime increases in said society. If he did not invoke such, there will be less risk of temptation and a greater chance of just seeing him as an individual criminal.
This cutscene from a videogame, the bioshock series, worth playing sometime, you can get a the trilogy for maybe 60 dollars, provides 50 hours of gameplay I guess so it's a good deal. This cutscene from the first game is a bit extreme for modern tastes, altruism has it's place, but it is technically correct in one area.

Was slavery, the holocaust, and more caused by anyone saying "think of yourself, mind your own business, you or other people have no obligation to some greater purpose, all there is is the living of your own life." It also means don't put up with yourself being oppressed.

To clarify the latter part, It is standing up for yourself through true blind social justice. If there is actual sexism in a workplace and you are a woman, think of you yourself who is being oppressed, not concepts such as "the patriarchy" or "third wave feminism", justice is blind, your focus should be on yourself not being mistreated, not "femaleness" being attacked. It's almost as if many of these groups are cults with no individuality. If someone says something bad about your almightly lord spaghetti monster, it's about your lord spaghetti monster, not you, the person who belongs to the cult.


John Craig said...

Ga --
The way you describe the autism pride movement, it actually reminds me a bit of the BLM movement, to whom it's more important to prove that white cops are killing blacks than it is to save black lives. In city after city, after the police are lambasted by the movement after some controversial incident of a cop killing a black man, the police become less aggressive with their policing, and the direct result is that the rate of black on black murder goes up. But to the Black Lives Matter movement, this is immaterial, the important thing is that they've successfully stirred up a fuss.

Anonymous said...

It's freaking masochism, they are all masochistic movements.