Multiple injuries reported after pedestrians struck by van in Toronto

Leave it to Beaverton to cut through the crap:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/04/motives-of-man-who-clearly-stated-h...

And of course you don't have to look far on the internet to find people calling the incel connection fake news.  And this:

https://thewitness.com.au/2018/04/25/toronto-attacked-by-incel-terrorist/

Quote:

Is there any decent, honorable reason for anybody to be urging us NOT to dismiss the idea that Muslims could be responsible?

I won't try to claim that it's decent or hono[u]able or or even true, but haven't there been people born "Robert McDonald" or somesuch who decide, late in life, to take the name "Mohammed Bin Headscarf"?  What does it prove to assert that his parents were Scots Canadians, and 0% of Scots Canadians are Muslim?

Again, this isn't the theory I'm going with.  I'm just saying that "most Armenians aren't Muslim" isn't proof that he wasn't Muslim.  He needs to tell us.  It's not ridiculous to imagine that he might be Muslim unless it's just as ridiculous to imagine that the former Cat Stevens is, or Cassius Clay, or lots of other people whose heritage isn't Muslim.

It's what all the really COOL kids are doing now! :)

And maybe I doth protest too much, but I want to be very clear here that I've provisionally dismissed the idea that he's Muslim, even as I suggest that it's too soon to pretend it's been disproven.

Quote:

Though strangely not so open minded that they aren't mentioning the unverified fact that he isn't part of the International Jewish Conspiracy, or the Freemen, or neo-Nazis, or any number of other groups we can't rule out yet.

Well, OK.  But is that their modus operandi?

If there have been other examples of "Freemen on the land" driving rental vans into innocent crowds, that would definitely seem wrong.  But if there are no examples of that, it would seem a bit less wrong.  Again, not suggesting "must be Muslim".  But I'm not shocked that Freemen on the land aren't getting equal consideration.  I thought they mostly just holed up in their primitive shack with their tens of thousands of dollars worth of automatic weapons.

Discussions of terrorism, misogyny and other violent behaviour based on belief systems should not be always conflated with mental illness. In fact, depending on who society deems to be a threat, some (namely ISIS and Al-Qaeda) were considered 100% terrorists others not so much. Racist and sexist perceptions do play a role in defining what we consider a terrorist. It seemed like it was far more clear cut when we recognized that terrorism was a political action. Striving to change the world to make women more compliant/subserviant to men's will or to erradicate or enslave distinctive groups of people because of presumed superiority - those are political acts and not necessarily the acts of individuals dealing with mental illness. Following and being involved in perpetrating those movements takes organized thinking.

Misogyny seems to be a problem which can have a multidisciplinary approach.

There is no question there is a toxic cultural environment, and millennia of history which built it up.

I also think that the propensity to exploit has something to do with it.

Getting into their heads using PET scanners is surely worth a shot...

Here's a CNN article from 2015: https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/health/why-people-are-sexist/index.html

Everything you say is true, however that may be as well. 

On the other hand, these "incels" are loosely organized, self-identified group that celebrated the action of driving that van into a bunch of people, who lionize Rodgers for his murders and hope that more of their number will follow in his footsteps. It's more than a group that doesn't disagree.

They're clearly pretty embittered, and I'm sure that they do wind each other up.  Clear incitements to violence should be legally actionable, and responsible web hosts like Reddit are free to (and should) deny them a microphone.

But I'm not expecting them to become a whole lot less embittered.  While it may seem like they're solely about misogyny -- angry at the women who don't sleep with them and have happy lives -- it really seems like they're just as angry at the "undeserving" men who sleep with women and also have happy lives.  It's the whole "women only like jerks and ignore gentlemen like me" trope, writ large.

Is it really all about "entitlement"?  Perhaps.  I wouldn't suggest that any man is "entitled" to sleep with any particular woman or women, nor, really, any at all.  It's not a human right, after all.  But when we talk about inequality, we note that even if you're fed and have a roof over your head and clothes on your back, if it looks like others have way, way more than you do, you'll probably end up resenting that.  Nobody's "entitled" to a luxury car, or a huge-screen TV, or a 3000 square foot house either, but when people realize that they'll just never have those things and will have to make do with an old Ford Taurus and a 40" television and an apartment, they're still going to feel a bit ripped off.

I'm not suggesting we all need to sympathize with these guys.  But I'm not convinced that they're just looking for someone to hate on.

I forgot to add to my last comment that the right to reproduction doesn’t mean the right to reproduce with anyone one wants. 

Perhaps I should point something out to explain my position.  

The media puts a huge focus on specific looks and body types as being attractive. This is bullshit propaganda that many people actually believe!

this guy may have felt that if a woman wasn’t at least 170cm tall and weighed 55kg, than she wasn’t attractive or worthy to share and enjoy life together. Guaranteed the corporate media beat this standard into his head!

Quote:

this guy may have felt that if a woman wasn’t at least 170cm tall and weighed 55kg, than she wasn’t attractive or worthy to share and enjoy life together.

So a picky guy was willing to kill others because he felt they were too picky?

Quote:

Contrary to what was claimed upthread, it isn't just guys who can't get laid. There are plenty of unhappy singles who don't think this way or do these things.

I don't doubt that one bit.  But if they're not having sex with women just so they can have an excuse to hate women for not having sex with them, their commitment to inchoate hatred is beyond my comprehension.

I'm only suggesting that maybe they're angry because they see others having things they reasonably don't think they'll ever have, and see it as an injustice or an inequality.  I'm not saying we have to entertain everyone who feels that way just because their neighbour "Chad" has something they don't.

But sadly, preventing "terrorism" does, in fact, mean having to at least try to understand it, the way that preventing serial murder means having to at least try to understand why serial killers serially kill.  We surely don't have to agree with them, but we'll get nowhere trying to force our understanding of things on them in order to understand them.

So a picky guy was willing to kill others because he felt they were too picky?

thats pretty much it. I seen this a lot when I was younger. Now I’m not sure if this was this guys case. But I should point out that I never seen anyone wanting to actually kill another person over their frustrations. I have seen fist fights. I myself was even sucker punched in a bar once by a guy who was jealous and got into a fight with him. 

It depends. I might have the apartment and no debts, and the other with all the physical things might be up to his neck in credit card debts, mortgages, lines of credit, car loans etc. Being parsimonious I might even have bank shares, so he is making me richer while I refuse to spend the money, and he gets further and further towards bankruptcy.

I once met a guy who was working for $11.50 an hour and had a BMW. I asked him how he paid for it, and he said it was because he took a full time shift at Popeye's after his day job. So he worked for 16 hrs a day to maintain appearances. Many people in flash cars are on these kind of leases.

The more crap you have, the more sorry I am for you. Maybe there are other family members who consider the crap more important than they consider you. Sometimes, you just have to walk away.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So a picky guy was willing to kill others because he felt they were too picky?......

I'm only suggesting that maybe they're angry because they see others having things they reasonably don't think they'll ever have, and see it as an injustice or an inequality.  I'm not saying we have to entertain everyone who feels that way just because their neighbour "Chad" has something they don't.

But sadly, preventing "terrorism" does, in fact, mean having to at least try to understand it, the way that preventing serial murder means having to at least try to understand why serial killers serially kill.  We surely don't have to agree with them, but we'll get nowhere trying to force our understanding of things on them in order to understand them.

You are right. Inequality is the root cause of the anger, but it is directed at women. They want to be Chads and have the BMWs of women. It isn't just appearance. A gorgeous prostitute won't do. They don't just want sex. They want a trophy.

The objectification of women is why they direct their anger at us, not the men they are competing with.  That same anger is expressed as racism and resentment against the poor. 

Quote:

Yeah, and on a more local level, our tendency to reduce real tragedy that affects real people, into theoretical balls to toss around.

And yet isn't that pretty much why we're all eager to know why he did it (and others as well)? 

I get that "he did it because he's probably a closet ISIS operative" counts as trying to make a li'l hay.

But so does saying "he did it because he spent nearly two whole weeks in the Army before quitting".

We seem to expect the guy to carry dozens of hobby horses.

I had not read this thread before today. The reason is I expected many predictable comments. I feel awful that it happened but I do wherever things like this happen. I don't have a policy answer.

I read the parts about those thinking it might be related to some definition of "Islamic Terror" even though there is so much evidence to the opposite. I also read the more applicable comments about the so-called "Incels."

Here is my thought on the cause.

I think wanting to do such drastic harm to another person is something internal to them. It is a serious problem within that person. I think they might seek justification using their personal rage if they can articulate it -- or they may look within the popular culture for an excuse. But the source in either case is not a religion or a so-called movement or even loneliness. It is a break with their humanity.

Rage is always personal.

It often comes form people unsupported to deal with their anger in another way. Or twisted through some kind of propaganda from others -- but this is aimed at those who are already weak and angry.

Islam may be also at great risk because many of its followers have been through horrible injustice, live in societies that offer very little personal support and a great deal of propaganda, and challenges in asking for help. The wording of  religions are prone to misinterpretation, even though the majority in each do not see it that way.

But today Islam is the popular culture bad guy for this. It is the biggest attraction for those with homicidal rage. It is the go-to excuse.

Incel is not organized, it has no sacred text. But the entitlement of the presumptions behind it are certainly behind so much violence against women. By giving it the label, some may seek to organize this into an excuse to rival whatever other ones exist. But the rage and sickness is always personal.

Incel is certainly a bigger catch all. Hatred against women and anger at being lonely is bigger than any religion. The entitlement felt by men to have sex with women, even when the women are not interested is older than any religion.

The jealousy of those who are successful - in love and in life. Who have companionship.

It also might be more true. I would find it easy to believe that the majority of acts of so-called Islamic terror were more likely personal homicidal rage seeking an excuse. At others who had so called normal lives -- anger against both men and women. But more at women as the ones who rejected them than the men who got what they thought was theirs.

I cannot help but wonder if we were to address this entitlement, support people with this particular rage with mental health care, we would not only reduce rage we see recognize as Incel but also rage blamed on violent Muslims and violent Christians and other violent men.

So this is my way of circling round to ask -- is this is any different from acts of so-called Islamic violence just without the Islamic excuse? Isn't most of this about envy?

Isn't that the universal heart of violence?

The excuse of Islam. It isn't just for the perpetrator. It is for everyone else too who is not Muslim. It is to say -- that is not me. I have no part of that. Like the rubber-necker at an accident scene wanting to see to asure themselves that the victim is someone else, in order to say, benetah consciousness, I am grateful that it is not me. Many (who know no Muslims) want it to be Islamic terror becuase then we can say, it is nobody we know. It cannot happen to me. I am not part of this.

How terrifying to know it is universal among men. That rage is always personal. That this is the big one.

Perhaps with the right understanding of cause, a more appropriate response would be possible.