What's up with white people sympathizing with white serial killers and mass shooters?

[Cassius Clay]

Ted Bundy and his "groupies". Richard Ramirez and his..

Go to any video about the Columbine shooters and a pretty good chunk of the commenters are expressing sympathy for them, rather than horror/disgust. And they're all white people(based on their avatars).

My new hobby is to start trolling these people by asking them if they would still have sympathy for these assholes if they were black. 'Cause I know damn well they haven't thought about it(at least, consciously)

[Monk]

It's fucking ridiculous. White mass shooters are "mentally disturbed" - non-whites are thugs or terrorists.

[Blade Azaezel]

I've taken to winding up people at work by showing sympathy for suicide bombers and terrorists, because it seems half the people I work with are right wingers who hate immigrants and want a wall built around the UK to prevent any muslamics from getting in.

[Derived Absurdity]

There was that one time where that one black guy went on some shooting spree and killed a bunch of cops and they had to burn down the house he was staying at or some shit to catch him. Reddit was in love with him then.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The Columbine shooters I could understand (but I would symparthize for, not with), but not the likes if Bundy. That said, yeah, you're right about the double standard and I must admit to being guilty of it.

I don't actually condone what the Columbine shooters did nor do I think their experience exonerates them, but I was that guy. The one that doesn't fit in, the one that was the butt of everyone's joke. I was just never bullied passed my breaking point beyond getting into a fight or two. I also never felt like I had an outlet, someone I could trust with these issues. But if we're going to blame societal ills for the people responsible for Columbine, we need to do the same for the so-called "thugs".

[Cassius Clay]

The Columbine shooters I could understand (but I would symparthize for, not with), but not the likes if Bundy. That said, yeah, you're right about the double standard and I must admit to being guilty of it.

I don't actually condone what the Columbine shooters did nor do I think their experience exonerates them, but I was that guy. The one that doesn't fit in, the one that was the butt of everyone's joke. I was just never bullied passed my breaking point beyond getting into a fight or two. I also never felt like I had an outlet, someone I could trust with these issues. But if we're going to blame societal ills for the people responsible for Columbine, we need to do the same for the so-called "thugs".

Kids are fucking assholes. In terms of fitting in and not fitting in, I had very diverse experiences. I traveled and changed schools a lot as a kid. Going from being one of the most popular kids - in one school - to having a very difficult time fitting in...in another school(in a different country) is one of the most bizarre things to experience(especially when you're just starting to go through your most awkward, socially paranoid phases). Kids like to fuck with the most socially(and physically) vulnerable kids. Kids that don't really have any social network or cache established. I definitely was pushed around and picked on by a few different kids because I was at the "bottom of the totem pole". By high school, I had grown pretty tall and was athletic/played sports, and I started slowly fitting in. But throughout high school, I never really felt like I completely fit in(by senior year, I really didn't give a fuck)...I know a lot of kids feel similar. The school was predominantly Jewish and cliquey. A lot of it was my mother's fault and as I'm typing this I just realized I'm still kinda resentful of her making me quit afterschool athletics my freshman year because I had a couple C grades by midterms...and it was the first time in a couple years where I really felt like I was fitting in, making friends and yada yada. Anyway, back when I was being bullied/made fun of, I sometimes couldn't fight back because I knew I would get my ass whooped...because these assholes had a posse and I didn't. I remember this one kid who attempted to bully me, who didn't really have friends himself, who's ass I proceeded to whoop. Never heard a peep from him again. Looking back, that kid was the type of motherfucker to shoot up a school, and if he brought a gun to school I would have been the first to die. He was a spoiled, rich white kid, who was obviously disturbed(had issues at home or something). And, this is my point: narcissistic personalities shoot up schools...

I do not believe that a person with healthy levels of empathy/humanity can be pushed to a "breaking point" where they bring a gun to school/work and sadistically murder unarmed people. I believe one must already have a personality disorder to do such a thing. In addition to the murderous fantasies, Harris wrote about wanting to rape girls in his journal...and the other kid is reported to have been laughing sadistically(like he was having the time of his life) during the shooting. These are not people deserving of any type of sympathy. I feel, at worst, if a "normal" person is broken by abuse/bullying, and feel like shooting up a school, they would go SPECIFICALLY after their tormentors...and/or regret it as soon as they pull the trigger. I think shooters are often a dangerous cocktail of having narcissistic personality disorder and being bullied/abused(either at home or work/school). They are people who would be the bullies if they had the chance. I think people associate "narcissists" with being successful or always being on top of the totem pole. But they don't really think about the narcissists that are at the bottom...the aggrieved, entitled ones. A "failed narcissist" is a very dangerous person. This is why I think any sympathy for these people is wildly misguided and dangerous. If we are dealing with narcissists(and I believe we are), this kind of public sympathy just reinforces their "special snowflake" syndrome...and all the excuses they tell themselves to justify their psychopathic behavior/fantasies. And I call it special snowflake because they/the public would never humor the idea that some mass killer killed because he was hurt/abused ...if the person wasn't white. The public response just reinforces the "white guy has a richer humanity that justifies his lashing out" bullshit narrative. How insanely ironic...that the white shooter is granted more humanity, while being psychopathic...and may even be part of the very reason they "lashed out" in the first place.

I posted a video a while ago on Malcolm Gladwell talking about the normalization of school shootings. How a horrible thing can gradually become a trend starting with complete psychopaths being the first, and then someone a little less psychopathic joining in, then someone less...and so on. Until even the most "normal" people start to join once enough people are doing it. It's an interesting video. I think public sympathy/excuses/coded rationalizations("he was a family man") for certain shooters has added to the normalization of mass shootings.

The whole thing is so empty and just sadistic. I was thinking, as horrible as all violence is, at least some types of violence have a purpose. At least political violence and war has a larger purpose of fighting for resources...at least street/gang violence has a purpose of fighting for a turf/resources/reputation. It's tragic, but has a purpose. But, to shoot people minding their own business, who are unarmed and can't fight back, is so very cowardly...especially when it's out of a sense of aggrieved narcissism...it's just an extra level of senseless that makes me want to vomit. I don't see how it's any different from being a rapist or serial killer. So, it's especially fucked up that people reserve their sympathy for these people, but not for "thugs".

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I do not believe that a person with healthy levels of empathy/humanity can be pushed to a "breaking point" where they bring a gun to school/work and sadistically murder unarmed people. I believe one must already have a personality disorder to do such a thing. In addition to the murderous fantasies, Harris wrote about wanting to rape girls in his journal...and the other kid is reported to have been laughing sadistically(like he was having the time of his life) during the shooting. These are not people deserving of any type of sympathy. I feel, at worst, if a "normal" person is broken by abuse/bullying, and feel like shooting up a school, they would go SPECIFICALLY after their tormentors...and/or regret it as soon as they pull the trigger. I think shooters are often a dangerous cocktail of having narcissistic personality disorder and being bullied/abused(either at home or work/school). They are people who would be the bullies if they had the chance. I think people associate "narcissists" with being successful or always being on top of the totem pole. But they don't really think about the narcissists that are at the bottom...the aggrieved, entitled ones. A "failed narcissist" is a very dangerous person. This is why I think any sympathy for these people is wildly misguided and dangerous. If we are dealing with narcissists(and I believe we are), this kind of public sympathy just reinforces their "special snowflake" syndrome...and all the excuses they tell themselves to justify their psychopathic behavior/fantasies. And I call it special snowflake because they/the public would never humor the idea that some mass killer killed because he was hurt/abused ...if the person wasn't white. The public response just reinforces the "white guy has a richer humanity that justifies his lashing out" bullshit narrative. How insanely ironic...that the white shooter is granted more humanity, while being psychopathic...and may even be part of the very reason they "lashed out" in the first place.


.

Well wait a minute. Are you saying people with personality disorders who don't feel they have an outlet for their problems don't deserve sympathy? This to me is a reflection of what's wrong with our society. We easily discard people without thinking of their conditions and the conditions in which they are raised. If you think shooters such as the ones in Columbine are a combination of narcissism and bullying, then shouldn't we ask how to better understand what they were going through, why that one kid was laughing, why Harris wanted to rape, why they felt like they couldn't approach anyone about these feelings?

For years when kids bullied or made fun of me and I told a teacher, it would either continue despite intervention or the teacher would tell me not to tattle. I never felt like I had an outlet I could go to, that I had someone to talk to about my difficulties, not even through my parents. Imagine what it must've been like for these two. We still live in a society where it feels much easier to judge and cast off the mentally ill rather than encourage them to find help. I myself had been wanting to go for 13 years before I worked up the courage to make the call & enter that office. 13 goddamn years where I was afraid of who I might find within and just who might find out. So forgive me if I don't think we should throw out the outside influences of these two simply because they didn't know how to ask for help or perhaps felt like they couldn't.. Nothing is going to improve if we pick & choose the elements that influenced these kids. With the constsnt bombardment of social media, the suicides & attacks are only going to get worse if we don't improve conditions for people with these kinds of disorders. I'm not asking anyone to look past their sins or even forgive them. I'm simply saying if we're going to push for change in culturally or socioeconomic negative areas, then we need to do it for all in order it improve for everyone and that really cannot be done without even a little bit of sympathy & understanding. I'm not saying the thoughts these kids had were right. We cannot ignore what these two did, but we also shouldn't ignore what they went through. And for me, the same holds true for those "thugs".

[Cassius Clay]

Well wait a minute. Are you saying people with personality disorders who don't feel they have an outlet for their problems don't deserve sympathy? This to me is a reflection of what's wrong with our society. We easily discard people without thinking of their conditions and the conditions in which they are raised. If you think shooters such as the ones in Columbine are a combination of narcissism and bullying, then shouldn't we ask how to better understand what they were going through, why that one kid was laughing, why Harris wanted to rape, why they felt like they couldn't approach anyone about these feelings?

For years when kids bullied or made fun of me and I told a teacher, it would either continue despite intervention or the teacher would tell me not to tattle. I never felt like I had an outlet I could go to, that I had someone to talk to about my difficulties, not even through my parents. Imagine what it must've been like for these two. We still live in a society where it feels much easier to judge and cast off the mentally ill rather than encourage them to find help. I myself had been wanting to go for 13 years before I worked up the courage to make the call & enter that office. 13 goddamn years where I was afraid of who I might find within and just who might find out. So forgive me if I don't think we should throw out the outside influences of these two simply because they didn't know how to ask for help or perhaps felt like they couldn't.. Nothing is going to improve if we pick & choose the elements that influenced these kids. With the constsnt bombardment of social media, the suicides & attacks are only going to get worse if we don't improve conditions for people with these kinds of disorders. I'm not asking anyone to look past their sins or even forgive them. I'm simply saying if we're going to push for change in culturally or socioeconomic negative areas, then we need to do it for all in order it improve for everyone and that really cannot be done without even a little bit of sympathy & understanding. I'm not saying the thoughts these kids had were right. We cannot ignore what these two did, but we also shouldn't ignore what they went through. And for me, the same holds true for those "thugs".

I think this is ultimately well-intended...but just deeply misguided(I'm sure you think the same of my position). You misunderstand some of my points tho. I'll elaborate when I'm not on my phone.

(And I don't think people should be discarded)

[Cassius Clay]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have "sympathy" for people with personality disorders that have no outlet. Firstly, not all personality disorders are equal...there are people with borderline personality disorder that need help; then there are people with all kinds of malignant clusters of personality disorders who are so far gone that they are basically the definition of evil. I'm all for figuring out ways to help fix "broken" people and stopping potential tragedies(there is some famous case of a young girl that was severely abused and acting like a psychopath to her adoptive parents, and was treated with some controversial therapy and is apparently a functioning young adult now). Secondly, what I'm saying is that we should be careful how we apply such "sympathy". Not apply it in a way that could very well be reinforcing the problem. Selectively applying sympathy by race being one example. There is a way to talk about things. People with narcissistic disorders exaggerate their victimization/slights against them. Thinking that "these poor kids might not have killed anyone if they weren't bullied" is such a misguided way to look at the problem. Even if it is a "factor"...to treat it as an important factor is naive. Personalities like that would eventually do major damage at some point in their life. Really think about what they did. It's like people underestimate just how psychopathic that is. It's like people don't realize that the Darth Vader-type character is a fantasy....the Walter Whites..the Dexter Morgans. "Awww poor Dylan was a good kid at heart but he just had a broken soul". No. There is no such thing. There is no coming back from that type of evil, imo. It's naive, good people's misguided projection in an attempt to see the good in all people(unless you're black of course)...a fantasy to see good conquer all.

Think about how people talk about rape and pedophilia. People have used similar arguments you made, for rape-apologetics: that we shouldn't just discard them and we should understand them so we can prevent rape. But there's a way to talk about that where it comes across as rape-apologia and a way to talk about it that doesn't. I'm saying the way some people talk about shooters like Dylan and Eric sounds more like the former. Not that people with issues/without an outlet don't deserve help...or that folks should necessarily be discarded. But there are certain things we have to be black and white about. It's like how when talking about a child molester....some people go the route of "awww, if he/she hasn't been abused as a kid, he/she wouldn't be a pedophile/rapist". Or "if that guy hadn't been raised in such a toxically masculine environment he wouldn't have raped that girl and ruin his life." Those may be factors, but they are still ultimately predators that committed evil acts.

There's a responsible way to talk about how abuse breeds abuse without making excuses for any abuse. There's a responsible way to talk about evil, and unapologetically naming evil for what it is, while trying to save people from succumbing to it. And part of that is the difference between prevention and reflection after the fact. We must do our best to prevent the cycle of abuse/protect innocents and prevent evil...and when an evil event occurs we must unflinchingly call it what it is and be careful regarding apologetics (and protect/center victims). I'm not discarding Dylan and Eric, they discarded themselves and their humanity when they decided to maniacally take people's lives(reflection). That does not mean I'm not concerned for people that might be on their path. But we must recognize that psychopathic lashing out like that has way deeper roots than school bullying (prevention).

This feels rambly because I'm still on my phone, but I hope I'm clearer.

[Cassius Clay]

Just edited in a few sentences for more clarity.

[Cassius Clay]

I'm also realizing that the way I feel about this is analogous to when I criticize the idea of the "accidental rapist". There's a way people talk about rape that often implies that they believe accidental rape is a pretty common thing. I've even noticed this from well-meaning feminists. What's analogous is the expressed intention of trying to really understand and educate people in order to prevent rape. But the problem is that it unintentionally puts rapists/potential rapists in a sympathetic light...rather than unapologetically naming rapists(in black and white fashion) for the psychos they are. Which plays right into their hands because rapists use this fake "grey area" to justify and hide their psychopathy. This is how a certain type of "understanding" can be misguided and dangerous.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have "sympathy" for people with personality disorders that have no outlet. Firstly, not all personality disorders are equal...there are people with borderline personality disorder that need help; then there are people with all kinds of malignant clusters of personality disorders who are so far gone that they are basically the definition of evil. I'm all for figuring out ways to help fix "broken" people and stopping potential tragedies(there is some famous case of a young girl that was severely abused and acting like a psychopath to her adoptive parents, and was treated with some controversial therapy and is apparently a functioning young adult now). Secondly, what I'm saying is that we should be careful how we apply such "sympathy". Not apply it in a way that could very well be reinforcing the problem. Selectively applying sympathy by race being one example. There is a way to talk about things. People with narcissistic disorders exaggerate their victimization/slights against them. Thinking that "these poor kids might not have killed anyone if they weren't bullied" is such a misguided way to look at the problem. Even if it is a "factor"...to treat it as an important factor is naive. Personalities like that would eventually do major damage at some point in their life. Really think about what they did. It's like people underestimate just how psychopathic that is. It's like people don't realize that the Darth Vader-type character is a fantasy....the Walter Whites..the Dexter Morgans. "Awww poor Dylan was a good kid at heart but he just had a broken soul". No. There is no such thing. There is no coming back from that type of evil, imo. It's naive, good people's misguided projection in an attempt to see the good in all people(unless you're black of course)...a fantasy to see good conquer all.

Think about how people talk about rape and pedophilia. People have used similar arguments you made, for rape-apologetics: that we shouldn't just discard them and we should understand them so we can prevent rape. But there's a way to talk about that where it comes across as rape-apologia and a way to talk about it that doesn't. I'm saying the way some people talk about shooters like Dylan and Eric sounds more like the former. Not that people with issues/without an outlet don't deserve help...or that folks should necessarily be discarded. But there are certain things we have to be black and white about. It's like how when talking about a child molester....some people go the route of "awww, if he/she hasn't been abused as a kid, he/she wouldn't be a pedophile/rapist". Or "if that guy hadn't been raised in such a toxically masculine environment he wouldn't have raped that girl and ruin his life." Those may be factors, but they are still ultimately predators that committed evil acts.

There's a responsible way to talk about how abuse breeds abuse without making excuses for any abuse. There's a responsible way to talk about evil, and unapologetically naming evil for what it is, while trying to save people from succumbing to it.

This feels rambly because I'm still on my phone, but I hope I'm clearer.

Yes, you are, but I should be clearer too. I agree with your overall conclusion, I just don't agree we should be ignoring the behaviors and cultural influences that negatively affect everyone and I don't think we can come to a full understanding by dismissing those with violent crimes that may very stem from a terrible disorder. I'm not saying we should forgive or make excuses. Maybe by sympathy I really mean recognition. Recognition that there are more influences than just mental illness, which you yourself identified the actions of those two as a combination of their narcissism and the bullying. And as someone who has gone through very negative experiences, I personally can't justify separating them because those make up just as much of who you are as your internal workings do.

That is the place I am coming from. It is a place of emotion I admit rather than logic. I am by no means saying we should let the likes of the Columbine shooters go or simply commit/excuse rapists & serial killers. I just feel it's dangerous to outright dismiss external forces that affect many of us negatively. As someone who has experienced things (more than just the bullying) I'm not comfortable sharing publicly, I can't help but feel a bit of understanding for those two. Do they deserve it? No. But we humans have never been the most rational, despite our pride in our capability to be rational. I think my issue is because of how we still talk and treat mental illness. Simply ignoring the influences which exacerbated these two on a mental & emotional level I feel will further drive people away who do need help. A dialogue needs to open to have an understanding of these two and the difference between them & those who aren't violent but still need help. Otherwise, this song & dance is going to keep happening.

[Cassius Clay]

I just don't agree we should be ignoring the behaviors and cultural influences that negatively affect everyone and I don't think we can come to a full understanding by dismissing those with violent crimes that may very stem from a terrible disorder.

I agree and I would never suggest such a thing. You're missing my point. Understanding or recognition is good. Understanding the bigger picture is better. The attempts at "understanding" I'm seeing are problematic/misguided. Regarding the Columbine shooting especially, there is an undercurrent of a disturbingly sympathetic narrative at play. Like people don't appreciate just how psychopathic you have to be to do what they did, and like it could happen to any good kid pushed to a breaking point. It's an "understanding" that attempts to undercut the agency of these two psychopaths. As if Columbine happened to the shooters...rather than the shooters happening to Columbine. If your attempt to "understand" a violent tragedy is irresponsibly undermining the agency of the perpetrators(even subtly or unintentionally), then you're doing it wrong...and you've crossed from prevention-through-understanding to apologetics-and-reinforcement. It's kind of a thin line. And people often don't recognize when they're on the wrong side of it. See my previous rape/pedophilia examples.

And I wouldn't throw gang violence, and this kind of mass-shooting-of-unarmed-people(lashing out at society), into the same category...that slightly obfuscates the point I'm trying to make.

Recognition that there are more influences than just mental illness, which you yourself identified the actions of those two as a combination of their narcissism and the bullying. And as someone who has gone through very negative experiences, I personally can't justify separating them because those make up just as much of who you are as your internal workings do......I think my issue is because of how we still talk and treat mental illness. Simply ignoring the influences which exacerbated these two on a mental & emotional level I feel will further drive people away who do need help.

When speaking about mental illness/disorders, I make a distinction between malignant personality disorders and "mental illness". People tend to throw it all in the same pot, but I think that's a huge mistake. It is said that most mentally ill people are harmed by others and are likely to harm themselves. People with personality disorders live to harm others and think they are the center of the universe. They are parasites. They are the boogey men written about in fairy tales. They are the people the idea of "vampires" came from. I'm being dramatic, but really...I wish people would recognize this distinction more often.

Honestly tho, those types of people aren't fully "human" to me. People that refuse to or can't recognize the humanity of others forfeit their own humanity. It's like with animals. We generally see animals as "less than" us(putting higher value on the more social animals) because they cannot reciprocate/mirror a recognition of the value of life. That's why a wild beast of a bear would casually annihilate you...like a psychopath would. That does not mean we should not treat animals with respect when we can. And it does not mean we should just discard of psychopaths and not try to cure them if we can. I don't believe personality disorders should simply be ignored. They should be properly labeled and responsibly addressed. I said I'm all for fixing "broken" people and gave an example of the little psychopathic girl they managed to "cure".

Anyone being bullied deserves sympathy. But, once Dylan and Eric decided to kill, they forfeited their humanity and were no longer deserving of any ounce of sympathy, imo. Given the larger context of their actions, to argue for being "sympathetic" about their bullying is incredibly myopic and socially irresponsible. Mass murder should never follow from bullying...much like rape should never follow from being intentionally teased or given "blue balls". I'm sympathetic to blue balls, but imagine talking about how you can't help but feel sympathetic to the blue balls defense of someone accused of rape.

Edit: And if it isn't obvious already, one of the main differences between mental illness and personality disorders is that I see the latter as having AGENCY, but the former having less agency(and in more need of help).

It is a place of emotion I admit rather than logic. I just feel it's dangerous to outright dismiss external forces that affect many of us negatively. As someone who has experienced things (more than just the bullying) I'm not comfortable sharing publicly, I can't help but feel a bit of understanding for those two. Do they deserve it? No. But we humans have never been the most rational, despite our pride in our capability to be rational.

I can appreciate that. I understand that humans are naturally sympathetic, even towards evil people. But I still think we should take a step back and try to be cognizant of not letting that sympathy turn into apologetics.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

I just don't agree we should be ignoring the behaviors and cultural influences that negatively affect everyone and I don't think we can come to a full understanding by dismissing those with violent crimes that may very stem from a terrible disorder.

I agree and I would never suggest such a thing. You're missing my point. Understanding or recognition is good. Understanding the bigger picture is better. The attempts at "understanding" I'm seeing are problematic/misguided. Regarding the Columbine shooting especially, there is an undercurrent of a disturbingly sympathetic narrative at play. Like people don't appreciate just how psychopathic you have to be to do what they did, and like it could happen to any good kid pushed to a breaking point. It's an "understanding" that attempts to undercut the agency of these two psychopaths. As if Columbine happened to the shooters...rather than the shooters happening to Columbine. If your attempt to "understand" a violent tragedy is irresponsibly undermining the agency of the perpetrators(even subtly or unintentionally), then you're doing it wrong...and you've crossed from prevention-through-understanding to apologetics-and-reinforcement. It's kind of a thin line. And people often don't recognize when they're on the wrong side of it. See my previous rape/pedophilia examples.

And I wouldn't throw gang violence and this kind of mass-shooting-of-unarmed-people(lashing out at society), into the same category...that slightly obfuscates the point I'm trying to make.

Recognition that there are more influences than just mental illness, which you yourself identified the actions of those two as a combination of their narcissism and the bullying. And as someone who has gone through very negative experiences, I personally can't justify separating them because those make up just as much of who you are as your internal workings do......I think my issue is because of how we still talk and treat mental illness. Simply ignoring the influences which exacerbated these two on a mental & emotional level I feel will further drive people away who do need help.

When speaking about mental illness/disorders, I make a distinction between malignant personality disorders and "mental illness". People tend to throw it all in the same pot, but I think that's a huge mistake. It is said that most mentally ill people are harmed by others and are likely to harm themselves. People with personality disorders live to harm others and think they are the center of the universe. They are parasites. They are the boogey men written about in fairy tales. They are the people the idea of "vampires" came from. I'm being dramatic, but really...I wish people would recognize this distinction more often.

And I don't believe personality disorders should simply be ignored. They should be properly labeled and responsibly addressed. I said I'm all for fixing "broken" people and gave an example of the little psychopathic girl they managed to "cure".

It is a place of emotion I admit rather than logic. I just feel it's dangerous to outright dismiss external forces that affect many of us negatively. As someone who has experienced things (more than just the bullying) I'm not comfortable sharing publicly, I can't help but feel a bit of understanding for those two. Do they deserve it? No. But we humans have never been the most rational, despite our pride in our capability to be rational.

I can appreciate that. I understand that humans are naturally sympathetic, even towards evil people. But I still think we should take a step back and try to be cognizant of not letting that sympathy turn into apologetics.

Fron what I'm reading in your responses, we ultimately agree. Maybe I wasn't clear in my points, because I wouldn't want what I'm thinking of as sympathy turning into apologetics.

I'm also sorry if I missed some of your points, but I have been using my phone as well.

[Cassius Clay]

Cool cool cool

[BruceSmith78]

I've mentioned this before, but I continuously see it on this board, and I feel it's sort of relevant to this discussion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia

^ Why are we constantly demonizing that? As someone who is not a pedophile but who does have a sexual "appetite", if you will, which is equally evil in nature, I think it's completely unfair. Nobody wants to be a pedophile, they just are, and I'm sure it's an extremely difficult thing to live with. Molestation is unforgivable and should absolutely be demonized, but not pedophilia. The two are not interchangeable, as everyone seems to think they are.

I say this because I think we need to be more accepting of pedophiles, so they don't have to live in constant fear and hide what should be a perfectly harmless condition.

[Derived Absurdity]

By "we" do you mean people in general or this board? I think this board generally understands that pedophilia is an involuntary psychiatric disorder which shouldn't be condemned unless it's actually acted on. But personal experience tells me there's a very large overlap between people who say pedophilia as a disorder shouldn't be condemned (which is reasonable) and molesting/raping children is perfectly okay (which is obviously not) (just take a look at IMDB), which is why I don't really bother arguing about it anymore.

[BruceSmith78]

I mean people in general, and I think it starts by differentiating between pedophilia and molestation, and realizing one is a harmless condition that can't really be helped, and the other is a heinous act that should always be condemned.

I figure if anybody could make that distinction, it's the people on this board, but I've brought it up a couple times and nobody ever seems to acknowledge it, except for you.

[BruceSmith78]

I also brought it up because Castor used the words as if they had the exact same meaning, which I constantly see happen, and while I realize language is what we make it, I think there really should be two separate words for these things, because they are definitely not the same thing.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah... as someone who grew up with urges I always (wrongly) considered immoral and disgusting, I empathize with non-offending pedophiles. Imagine growing up having involuntary urges to molest/rape children. In a society which doesn't take care to make the necessary distinctions, it would be extremely difficult to psychologically dissociate those urges with what you consider your inner character. As if it says something about who you fundamentally are.

I wouldn't go so far as to pedophilia by itself is "harmless" though. Empathize with its victims, but the disorder itself is still extremely dangerous and damaging to the world, and it needs to go as soon as medically possible.

[BruceSmith78]

Yeah, I guess I could agree with that. Speaking generally, harmless might not be the right word for it, but for it to be harmful it must also be inflicted on a psychopath, because as Castor mentioned earlier, people with empathy don't commit unspeakably evil acts, no matter what their sexual urges might be.

[Derived Absurdity]

Disagree. Even if there was no danger of actual physical molestation, viewing children sexually would still be highly dangerous. It would still pervert and corrupt how we perceive and treat children in the broader picture, even if only a small percentage of people had it. We already treat children horribly. We always have. I think we would treat children better if there wasn't a small-ish subset of people who (knowingly or not) viewed them as sexual beings.

Historically, child rape has been extremely common and mainstream. The people doing it weren't psychopaths, because they didn't believe they were doing anything wrong. It's only fairly recently that the idea that children are harmed by sexual contact with adults has spread.

http://psychohistory.com/articles/the-h ... ild-abuse/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Childhood has always been a horrific nightmare, and the mere existence of pedophilia has contributed significantly to that. There is really no good that could come from adults viewing children sexually. It's a disorder which needed to go yesterday.

[Cassius Clay]

I do recognize a distinction between "having an attraction to children" and actually committing rape. I don't mean to necessarily conflate them.

It does bother when people talk about pedophilia like it's merely an "orientation" like any other. It's an orientation towards rape...and that should be treated/talked about with the gravity it deserves. And we can do that without necessarily discarding/condemning non-offending pedophiles.

[BruceSmith78]

Even if there was no danger of actual physical molestation, viewing children sexually would still be highly dangerous. It would still pervert and corrupt how we perceive and treat children in the broader picture, even if only a small percentage of people had it. We already treat children horribly. We always have. I think we would treat children better if there wasn't a small-ish subset of people who (knowingly or not) viewed them as sexual beings.

I could replace the word "children" with "people" or "women" in this paragraph, and you'd have an argument against sexuality as a whole, or sexual acts involving women if you choose the latter. I'm not convinced.

I do agree that no good can come from adults viewing children sexually, though, and if there was a medical cure for pedophilia, it would be a good thing.

[Derived Absurdity]

Well, I would argue that our "normal" primal sexual urges make the world a worse place too. Because, to me, it's obvious they do. The world would drastically improve if our urges could be modulated and controlled at our will. If they were made voluntary. I don't like the fact that our perceptions/impressions of other people are controlled entirely by hormones beyond our will. So I am actually against sexuality as it's currently constituted, which is why I'm a transhumanist.

But I sort of think I'm getting slightly off-topic now.

[Anakin McFly]

Re: non-offending pedophiles, there's a support group for them: http://www.virped.org

Re: rest of thread, I'm not sure if I want this debate again, but I disagree that there is no coming back from that type of evil. I did, and know another friend who did, someone who now wouldn't hurt a fly and is an extremely compassionate person. So I'm always convinced there's hope. I also don't think that they can be separated so easily into the mentally ill who hurt themselves and those with personality disorders who hurt others.

I wanted to hurt both myself and others. I had been physically abusing myself since I was 3, and the bullying started a few years later. I was extremely angry at myself and at the world - much for the sheer injustice happening everywhere which everyone seemed completely oblivious to or uncaring about, including to my own bullying, which happened en masse. I was the weird kid whom it was cool to pick on (I'm probably on the autistic spectrum, also trans). They'd make fun of everything, even the way I walked. Whole groups of kids would run away mock-screaming whenever I tried to talk to someone. I'd get bullied by people I didn't even know, or be targetted by pranks that I'd fall for because I was extremely trusting, and all those kids in school would just watch and laugh. I never fought back because I just wanted them to like me. I practically worshipped most of them because I saw them as better than myself and that if they were bullying me I must have done something to deserve it, which resulted in further self-harm as a way to punish myself for being a broken human. But then that continued repression turned the worship into resentment and drove that anger to dangerous heights, until self-harm wasn't enough as an outlet and I started having extremely violent fantasies about shooting up the school.

I do not condone the actions of those who actually end up doing so. I also wouldn't be able to murder anyone now or in future, because I discovered empathy after years of it being clouded with intense anger. Neither do I have any sympathy for those who are clearly self-entitled psychopaths or acting out of bigotry towards those they perceive as lesser humans threatening their privilege. But in other cases I can recognise the extreme pain that drives someone to that point. This happens regardless of their race; I sympathise far more with criminals who were abused or are marginalised in some way, out of that same recognition. And it would be an inhuman moral failure on my part if I didn't feel any of that sympathy or desire to ease that pain, preferably before they end up hurting others and multiplying it. It doesn't mean excusing or finding their actions okay or thinking they should be spared any punishment, although I'm in favour of restorative justice for all criminals where possible.

(I've considered becoming a counsellor, but I'm not sure if I could cope. The closest I've got is helping to co-run a support group for gay Christians at my church. a lot of hurt, angry people there.)

[Cassius Clay]

I meant there's no coming back from gleefully killing a bunch of unarmed people. That's completely psychopathic. And I don't believe you were ever capable of a such a thing...though I believe you might have fantasized about it. But there is quite a gap between fantasy and reality. I believe there are people who have murder and rape fantasies, who are clearly capable of committing such acts in reality...and there are people who might have such fantasies who are not capable of doing so in reality/can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Derived Absurdity]

and there are people who might have such fantasies who are not capable of doing so in reality/can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Anakin McFly]

I meant there's no coming back from gleefully killing a bunch of unarmed people.

Ah, okay; I misinterpreted that there. I think it still might be possible for people to come back from that, though it usually takes either some major trauma or religious conversion of the good sort.

[Cassius Clay]

I don't just mean "coming back" in terms of regaining a conscience, but you irreversibly give up your own "humanity" when you are able to dehumanize others to that extent. Anyone capable of doing that does not deserve a status of fully "human".

[Cassius Clay]

So far, most people don't know how to respond to my trolling. People have been asking why I keep bringing up race.

Though, one girl answered directly and said she would feel the same way if they were black. Someone else said the reason I don't understand the sympathy is because I would have been one of their bullies. 'Cause one obviously cannot have sympathy for bullying victims and completely rebuke cold-blooded killing at the same time.

As I was arguing with some woman, it occurred to me that one of the main keys is a misinterpretion of the purpose of suicide in these cases. She kept saying they were suicidal, as justification for the excuses she was making for them. People don't seem to realize that there's a difference between being suicidal and killing yourself because you've done something terrible and can't bear to face the consequences. Mass shooters tend to only kill themselves when cornered by the police. If they could escape capture they would go on killing. Ariel Castro tortured 3 women for a decade...only killed himself when he was caught. That's not what I'd call "suicidal".

This is why this sympathy is so deeply misplaced.

[Anakin McFly]

Mass shooters tend to only kill themselves when cornered by the police. If they could escape capture they would go on killing.

I don't think that's true in all cases - quite a few murderers (not just school shooters) specifically plan murder-suicides, where capture is not a factor. They just don't want to live any more and want to take others down with them.

[Cassius Clay]

Yeah, I know they plan on killing themselves. But, I believe that's because they already know they're not gonna get away with it. That's why they tend to kill until the police have them cornered. If they could somehow kill a bunch of people without getting captured(and not inconvenience their life too much), they wouldn't kill themselves. They want to kill way more than they want to die...and what they really want is the infamy. I'm sure they would love to be alive to see their own infamy, but they gauge that it wouldn't be worth being in jail for. And getting to indulge in their own murderous fantasies is so important to them, that they are willing to die for it if they have to. It's a matter of their will to kill beating out their will to live. Not, so much the more popular and more sympathetic narrative of "I want to kill myself, I might as well take some people with me." I believe killing is the priority and suicide necessarily follows, not the other way around.

Same with dudes that murder their families or wives/girlfriends on impulse(or planning)...they kill themselves 'cause they can't face the music.

[Anakin McFly]

In the case of mass shootings, I think that may be forcing the facts to fit a theory. It might be true for some of them, but the reckless desperation that accompanies mass shootings is not characteristic of someone who hopes to live on. It would much better fit the pattern of a serial killer - same infamy, they get to indulge their murderous fantasies without necessarily getting caught, they get to drive fear into the heart of society, they get to have authorities obsessed with stopping them, they get to live while all that is happening, and their names live on in history. Whereas mass shootings plus suicides are one-off incidents; they get to experience at most a few minutes or hours of glory before they're dead, which wouldn't make sense if that experience of glory is what they're after.

[Cassius Clay]

Individual murders don't get the same type of attention as random spree killings(especially when they are unsolvable). And because successful serial killers are anonymous, they don't enjoy the same level of infamy spree killers get, which they'd probably like.

And it's not simply a matter of whether they hope to live on or not. I'm saying suicide is not a primary motivation, but a cost they're willing to make. But, if they could somehow lash out at society that way, and get away with it without having to kill themselves, they would. It is driven primarily by narcissism and deep misanthropy.

I do think the motivations of serial killers and mass shooters are very similar...just expressed differently. I think mass shooters are motivated more by a hatred of collective society than of individual people, and are willing to die to express that. I think a lot of suicide bombers are motivated in a similar way.

[Anakin McFly]

I think mass shooters are motivated more by a hatred of collective society than of individual people, and are willing to die to express that.

Yeah I agree with that.