Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know it sounds like a topic for Politics and Controversies but, after reading the article I really feel like it belongs here more. I found it a compelling read:
Can't read the whole article 'cause I got to go to work, but about the first half of it is right on target. The problem is we want to erode every single risk we have over our children (the "letting to run around and play" aspect is where I had to stop), "overprotecting" them and we lead them to live unnatural lives--thus sometimes this is the outcome, mentally deranged adults.
People might call it bosh, but part of the solution can be rewinding the clocks back a few decades (not sure how to do that??) when children were allowed to roam around and parents took the risks; and cut all this medication crap out, for almost everyone. Kids are going to be kids, parents. You just got to deal with them acting up. Most likely, if your child is on an ADHD medication, HE/SHE does NOT need it. I don't care what crap you come up with as the excuse: "Well, you do NOT what to see what a HORROR he/she is without it!" He or she is a child. They will act like children. You need to be a responsible parent and try to raise him or her without the "help" of medication--because it is going to have a DRASTIC result on their lives and possibly the lives of others.
To stalk people you don't hate and not kill them is just as cowardly. Everyone knows that stalkers are cowardly freaks and weirdos with hardcore personality disorders.
I'm not trying to "take sides" but I do believe the early posts are missing an important point; too many of the goody-two-shoes types who preach about "reaching out" to supposedly-alienated (and often otherwise quite self-reliant) single men are actually intent upon luring them into a social structure that will diminish, and possibly even destroy that autonomy, There are very few jobs out there which are compatible with the "lighthouse keeper" personality, and what's left are diminishing rapidly.
I can recognize that the model cited above has its downside, and that women, many of whom are still conditioned to depend upon a male breadwinner and to assume primary responsibility for child-rearing, are the more-vulnerable sex, and often pay a heavy price. The demands and dictates of a manufacturing-oriented, "heavy"-industrial society provided more options for the traditional breadwinner -- not so much to "opt out" as to find a less-structured and less-interactive role than in a service-oriented occupation, many of which now involve entry-level work with that irrational, demanding critter we call "the public".
And as a person forced to "start over" in a call-center atmosphere while in my early Fifties, I can attest that plenty of games are played, especially when a large percentage of the supervision is female. Most men can, and do learn to adapt to much of this, especially with the help of the right partner,
But the number of men who feel ill-at-ease in the hyper-sensitized and over-politicized atmosphere of the typical post-industrial workplace (modeled, in turn, after a classroom, and a primary-school classroom, at that) is grossly under-stated. My father was a dairy-farmer; his choice of employment called for a wide variety of skills, and could also present its share of physical perils. For over forty years, he rose at 5 AM to milk and, when he could find someone to fill in for him, couldn't leave the farm for more than a day or two. But he possessed far greater dread of being sent to a back-row desk in a large, heavily-politicized office.
I don't think the Las Vegas shooter fits your description, frankly. He did amass a fortune, seemed somewhat kind to his family, did exactly as he pleased for many years. He came apart somehow. The only clue to his mental state is something his gf said about him writhing in bed and moaning about something. Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter reportedly said he would lie in bed
There is no evidence that he was badly socialized or traumatized by a female supervisor.
I think there are reasons why we didn't have mass killers for years until Whitman, and seldom thereafter until Columbine. We have vastly more guns out there, and a lot of people own many guns of various sorts. And, we have a script. This is what unhappy men do: they get a gun, or guns, and they go on a killing spree and then they die a "heroic" death. It is as if they are acting out a suicide mission that they understand and follow.
I'm not trying to "take sides" but I do believe the early posts are missing an important point; too many of the goody-two-shoes types who preach about "reaching out" to supposedly-alienated (and often otherwise quite self-reliant) single men are actually intent upon luring them into a social structure that will diminish, and possibly even destroy that autonomy, There are very few jobs out there which are compatible with the "lighthouse keeper" personality, and what's left are diminishing rapidly.
I can recognize that the model cited above has its downside, and that women, many of whom are still conditioned to depend upon a male breadwinner and to assume primary responsibility for child-rearing, are the more-vulnerable sex, and often pay a heavy price. The demands and dictates of a manufacturing-oriented, "heavy"-industrial society provided more options for the traditional breadwinner -- not so much to "opt out" as to find a less-structured and less-interactive role than in a service-oriented occupation, many of which now involve entry-level work with that irrational, demanding critter we call "the public".
And as a person forced to "start over" in a call-center atmosphere while in my early fifties, I can attest that plenty of games are played, especially when a large percentage of the supervision is female. Most men can, and do learn to adapt to much of this, especially with the help of the right partner,
But the number of men who feel ill-at-ease in the hyper-sensitized and over-politicized atmosphere of the typical post-industrial workplace (modeled, in turn, after a classroom, and a primary-school classroom, at that) is grossly under-stated. My father was a dairy-farmer; his choice of employment called for a wide variety of skills, and could also present its share of physical perils. For over forty years, he rose at 5 AM to milk and, when he could find someone to fill in for him, couldn't persuade himself to leave the farm for more than a day or two. But he possessed far greater dread of being sent to a back-row desk in a large, heavily-politicized office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silibran
I don't think the Las Vegas shooter fits your description, frankly.
There is no evidence that he was badly socialized or traumatized by a female supervisor.
My post wasn't intended to revolve around that issue alone; the point is, that as a man approaches and passes more of life's milestones, he is far more likely to be "forced out to pasture" -- stereotyped and patronized by a "system" driven (in part) by mild feminism (and very much in synch with the Societal Gospel of Political Correctness). And as the slights -- real or perceived (which a lot of us are savvy enough to recognize) -- increase, so does the resentment.
The problem has its origins in the single most prominent societal change of our times, and big Brother and Sister aren't going to be able to put the evil genie back into his/her(?) bottle.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 10-09-2017 at 02:07 PM..
It's silly to try to figure out why they do what they do, because -
There was more than one shooter. Even with an automatic weapon, you can't shoot 500+ people in so short a time. The media depends on people not knowing much about this.
Somebody else (police, gov't, etc) was complicit. There were 10" high walls keeping people from moving out of the way. They were just sitting duck. Nobody reports this.
You have to be careful where you get your news from.
It's silly to try to figure out why they do what they do, because -
There was more than one shooter. Even with an automatic weapon, you can't shoot 500+ people in so short a time. The media depends on people not knowing much about this.
Somebody else (police, gov't, etc) was complicit. There were 10" high walls keeping people from moving out of the way. They were just sitting duck. Nobody reports this.
You have to be careful where you get your news from.
Paddock just doesn't fit the profile of these killers. Unless he had recently had major gambling losses, he had control of his life, including control over other people who gave him what he wanted because he was the money man. As his brother said, "Comped".
If this is all as it seems, he was really a psychopath that finally gave in to his sickness. Maybe a genetic monster, a bad seed that finally sprouted it's evil in the worst way.
Paddock just doesn't fit the profile of these killers. Unless he had recently had major gambling losses, he had control of his life, including control over other people who gave him what he wanted because he was the money man. As his brother said, "Comped".
If this is all as it seems, he was really a psychopath that finally gave in to his sickness. Maybe a genetic monster, a bad seed that finally sprouted it's evil in the worst way.
Certain details of his gambling are starting to come out, and they're somewhat unflattering.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
