Serious [EFFORTPOST] Society would be better off if it empathized with perpetrators of crimes.

[tired as fuck]

This whole empathy stuff is nothing but a tool for normies to attain moral superiority and signal their virtues to other cattle. We know this.

However something that I never see discussed anywhere, not even here (Joined Mar 27, 2026) is how the lack of empathy for criminals effectively blocks society from truly advancing.

The argumentation shall be general in nature as I am not equipped with the tools nor the will to tackle each individual type of crime sequentially. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating for people to commit crimes, nor I am supporting the belief that crime is acceptable at all, generally (can we really consider a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to eat, a crime, even though the law does treat it as so? I'll come back to this later).

Crime is presently treated as something akin to an indelible sin. Criminals are subject to social ostracization, occupational ostracization, prevention from getting jobs, and, due to an error they committed, their entire life is ruined. Fair enough, maybe; after all, if the collective, an individual, or a group of individuals is hurt in a meaningful way, there should be a sanction to re-establish a balance of sorts.

The main point I want to put forward is quite straightforward: both the social and legal aspects of dealing with crime are insufficient to maintain even the flimsiest of balanced, and ultimately preclude humanity from advancing and awakening, beginning to address the most deeply rooted flaws in the systems of society.

The legal aspect shall be liquidated without too deep of a dive, for I am not a jurist, nor an ex-convict. The most obvious and glaring contradiction in the system is that nominally, the convicted criminal is subject to re-education and the inmate's re-admission into civil society is facilitated, but in practice neither of these two things occur. Inmates are treated worse than insects, are never re-educated, and in countries like the USA, they are exploited for the profit of private companies. Once inmates get out of jail, the rate of 2nd incarceration is (relatively) very high, symptom of a failed readmission. Think about veterans going back to the USA and being treated like shit by both the cattle and those who should've helped them most, the institutions. This is not that far off.

However I wanted to deal with the social aspect of crime aftermath: stigmatization.

People tend to look at crime in a purely emotional way. Besides those who are inconvenienced by a crime being perpetrated (what I'm trying to say, besides people who are murdered, their family, friends etc, besides those who suffer the consequences of an arson etc, basically those who are on the receiving end of a crime being committed), there should be no reason for people to only look at crime through those blurry lenses of emotion.

First of all, people tend to assign negative moral labels to criminals, even if they are alleged criminals and haven't been proven as such yet. The public seems to require labelling of this sort for two reasons: to distance themselves from the act in itself; to signal to others their own moral virtues. However, emotional behaviors of these sorts has only one effect: negating any possibility of redemption to the criminal. In short, it never began.

In addition to that, people only "empathize" with the victim or perceived victim of a crime. For all those from the USA, consider whenever a school shooting occurs. There has been developed in the course of these past 2 decades an all-encompassing protocol for dealing with a school shooting and the aftermath of such an event. The press must not publish photos of the shooter; focus must be solely on the victims and the school; the shooter must be labelled as "crazy", "not lucid" or other such terms...

What do such behaviours accomplish? For a relatively short amount of time, the victims' families and other mourners meight feel that the burden is shared with other people, but that feeling is short-lived and people do not really care about such things happening, if it doesn't benefit their own ego first and foremost.

What has always fascinated me about how school shootings are handled in public discourse is how no thought is put into the perpetrator. Sure, he sparged out and killed a bunch of teens, but why did he sperg out? Why did he reach a breaking point and decided to commit such an extreme act (which almost always ends in suicide)? These questions are never asked.

Free will does not exist. It is a lie, kept alive to protect the perceived moral superiority that the individual feels regarding himself, for determinism postulates that under the same circumstances, the supposedly morally superior normie would act the same way as the repugnant shooter.

Often enough, those who are victims are also perpetrators. Often enough, those who judge have been judging for far longer.

I took the example of school shooters because it is the most easy to understand, but this same very analysis applies to other crimes, both violent and non-violent.

If people started thinking more, they would ask the correct questions, regarding the shooter's infancy, teenage years, family life, social life, inner psyche. They would try to comprehend the circumstances and the motivations behind the shooter's actions, and, perhaps a utopian possibility, they'd move to ensure that such circumstances cannot possiby exist anymore. In brief, they would try to feel empathy for the shooter's condition. Once again, I do not condone criminal actions, nor do I wish to paint criminals in a totally positive light. I wish for them to not be painted in a completely negative light, and I wish for a time when people could look at a criminal and try to understand what happened and why, in order to improve society (a construction that is indispensable in this day and age for survival) in such a way that such episodes might not occur anymore.

Spoiler: Tagging people who I think might be interested

@GeckoBus @WastedPotential @AtrociousCitizen @The Notorious SLAV @St3v3Cel @DjentlemanDuke @Giracel @EmperorCaligula @UndeadDeadMan @esdeathlover @Freixel @picklecel @UnluckyPrimate
Sorry if you do not wish to be tagged please let me know if so

 

[WastedPotential]

interesting, it's late for me now. but remind me tomorrow to read this. Thanks for the tag

 

[GeckoBus]

This whole empathy stuff is nothing but a tool for normies to attain moral superiority and signal their virtues to other cattle. We know this.

However something that I never see discussed anywhere, not even here (Joined Mar 27, 2026) is how the lack of empathy for criminals effectively blocks society from truly advancing.

The argumentation shall be general in nature as I am not equipped with the tools nor the will to tackle each individual type of crime sequentially. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating for people to commit crimes, nor I am supporting the belief that crime is acceptable at all, generally (can we really consider a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to eat, a crime, even though the law does treat it as so? I'll come back to this later).

Crime is presently treated as something akin to an indelible sin. Criminals are subject to social ostracization, occupational ostracization, prevention from getting jobs, and, due to an error they committed, their entire life is ruined. Fair enough, maybe; after all, if the collective, an individual, or a group of individuals is hurt in a meaningful way, there should be a sanction to re-establish a balance of sorts.

The main point I want to put forward is quite straightforward: both the social and legal aspects of dealing with crime are insufficient to maintain even the flimsiest of balanced, and ultimately preclude humanity from advancing and awakening, beginning to address the most deeply rooted flaws in the systems of society.

The legal aspect shall be liquidated without too deep of a dive, for I am not a jurist, nor an ex-convict. The most obvious and glaring contradiction in the system is that nominally, the convicted criminal is subject to re-education and the inmate's re-admission into civil society is facilitated, but in practice neither of these two things occur. Inmates are treated worse than insects, are never re-educated, and in countries like the USA, they are exploited for the profit of private companies. Once inmates get out of jail, the rate of 2nd incarceration is (relatively) very high, symptom of a failed readmission. Think about veterans going back to the USA and being treated like shit by both the cattle and those who should've helped them most, the institutions. This is not that far off.

However I wanted to deal with the social aspect of crime aftermath: stigmatization.

People tend to look at crime in a purely emotional way. Besides those who are inconvenienced by a crime being perpetrated (what I'm trying to say, besides people who are murdered, their family, friends etc, besides those who suffer the consequences of an arson etc, basically those who are on the receiving end of a crime being committed), there should be no reason for people to only look at crime through those blurry lenses of emotion.

First of all, people tend to assign negative moral labels to criminals, even if they are alleged criminals and haven't been proven as such yet. The public seems to require labelling of this sort for two reasons: to distance themselves from the act in itself; to signal to others their own moral virtues. However, emotional behaviors of these sorts has only one effect: negating any possibility of redemption to the criminal. In short, it never began.

In addition to that, people only "empathize" with the victim or perceived victim of a crime. For all those from the USA, consider whenever a school shooting occurs. There has been developed in the course of these past 2 decades an all-encompassing protocol for dealing with a school shooting and the aftermath of such an event. The press must not publish photos of the shooter; focus must be solely on the victims and the school; the shooter must be labelled as "crazy", "not lucid" or other such terms...

What do such behaviours accomplish? For a relatively short amount of time, the victims' families and other mourners meight feel that the burden is shared with other people, but that feeling is short-lived and people do not really care about such things happening, if it doesn't benefit their own ego first and foremost.

What has always fascinated me about how school shootings are handled in public discourse is how no thought is put into the perpetrator. Sure, he sparged out and killed a bunch of teens, but why did he sperg out? Why did he reach a breaking point and decided to commit such an extreme act (which almost always ends in suicide)? These questions are never asked.

Free will does not exist. It is a lie, kept alive to protect the perceived moral superiority that the individual feels regarding himself, for determinism postulates that under the same circumstances, the supposedly morally superior normie would act the same way as the repugnant shooter.

Often enough, those who are victims are also perpetrators. Often enough, those who judge have been judging for far longer.

I took the example of school shooters because it is the most easy to understand, but this same very analysis applies to other crimes, both violent and non-violent.

If people started thinking more, they would ask the correct questions, regarding the shooter's infancy, teenage years, family life, social life, inner psyche. They would try to comprehend the circumstances and the motivations behind the shooter's actions, and, perhaps a utopian possibility, they'd move to ensure that such circumstances cannot possiby exist anymore. In brief, they would try to feel empathy for the shooter's condition. Once again, I do not condone criminal actions, nor do I wish to paint criminals in a totally positive light. I wish for them to not be painted in a completely negative light, and I wish for a time when people could look at a criminal and try to understand what happened and why, in order to improve society (a construction that is indispensable in this day and age for survival) in such a way that such episodes might not occur anymore.

Spoiler: Tagging people who I think might be interested

@GeckoBus @WastedPotential @AtrociousCitizen @The Notorious SLAV @St3v3Cel @DjentlemanDuke @Giracel @EmperorCaligula @UndeadDeadMan @esdeathlover @Freixel @picklecel @UnluckyPrimate
Sorry if you do not wish to be tagged please let me know if so

Problem is that the more you contextualize something like crime, the more deterministic it becomes. At maximum level of taking everything possible into context, nobody is responsible for anything, because there wont be anyone anymore, just a giant deterministic process. So at local, human level, the courts, legal system operates on heuristic judgements.

It's based on power dynamics and thats it. They just arbitrarily decide what amount and type of context they consider valid, and which is invalid. For instance, idk, some violent guy kills a woman. Well technically, if the woman hadnt been there, she wouldnt have been killed. So we can always characterize any event as accidental right? But this would logically mean that we can not hold anyone responsible for anything.

So how do they objectively decide which context elements to include and which to exclude. By what magical standard is this selection happening? The answer is that it isnt. It is arbitrary. They base it of their own feelings, the authority of their feelings. The general feelings are then encoded into law and systematically enforced using soft- and hard-violence. This is the only possible answer. Now, for normies of course this is kinda brutal.

The reason its brutal, and I also dont get this myself btw, is because the implication is that any society, literally every single society is basically necessarily built in authoritarianism. The legal system has to be arbitrary and build on raw power dynamics because there is no other way. The entire society has to be built that way. People feel free because they act within the confines and values instilled in them by the system they are subject to. But this freedom is illusory, they are living in a system that is as restrictive as any "totalitarian" system ever in history, but it just doesnt feel that way, because they are part of it, they embody it and defend it.

Think about the impliations. If this is true, then there can be no democracy. None of these idea of equality, of good rulership matter. Every society must default to some form of authorotarian rule, be it from hidden oligarchs, corporations and conglomerates lobbying, deep state - it doesnt matter. If no objective standard can be determined to make these judgements about people, then every single system becomes arbitrary rule of force, based on human nature expressing itself, it's inherent values.

It becomes deterministic, "facistic" whatever you want to call it. Freedom is a complete meme then, there is no freedom in this. Democracy can not be real, not because it is "worse" than other systems or some stupid shit like that no, no - democracy is logically impossible, because if nobody can make an objective choice, then democracy is just rule by violence. Whoever controls the mob, controls society -> ergo, propganda becomes tool of control in so called democratic societies (bernays, lippman bla bla).

So to answer your question - why do they not take more context into account when dealing with school shooters or similiar cases? They dont FEEL that it matters, and then they enforce the feelings using authority given to them by government, which itself is just biggest mafia organization around at the moment. The difference between organized government and organized crime is zero. Just one has more power to legitimize itself and make citizens believe it is somehow a legitimate entity.

Another way we can see how arbitrary and feelings based this gets is by looking how women or meeks type criminals are judged compared to others. We have seen the studies where women or good looking criminals get lower sentences - this is 100% feelings based. The court, people only invoke context or cry for more "nouanced" handling of cases if they feel the perpetrator should get off easy, usually cuz its a woman or something.

So when it suits them they suddenly go OH LETS LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE OH SHES A YOUNG GIRL, OMG MAYBE HER DAD ABUSED HER bla bla. People have complained about this exact thing for 100s of years, Gustave le bon wrote about french courts going easy on women in the 1800s already. Its feelings first, then law. If they feel bad for the perpetrator they invoke context and other shit to lower the sentence. If they dont like the perpetrator, like with school shooters, then they do the opposite, they disregard context more and more, to, again, advance their own feelings.

 

[coursehawk69]

I think there is way too much sympathy for criminals these days, at least in the US, and for brown criminals. You hear crazy stories about a black guy killing somebody and it turns out he's got 20+ previous convictions. I do agree that rehabilitation would be nice, especially for veterans, but you have to be careful about what kinds of criminals you are having sympathy for. Murder except for self defense is never justified. Most criminals are not poor Aladdins stealing bread because they are dying of hunger.

You are also romanticizing school shootings. Most of these guys are psychos, the kinds of people who torture animals when they are kids. Maybe you see yourself in them because you were bullied or you desire to get even with the world, but even among people like us, they are outliers. The vast majority of people like us are nonviolent. Even among trannies, who are most if not all mentally ill, most of them are peaceful too. I think that if you do truly look into these cases more, you'll find that their violence is explained more by their psychotic nature than by how people treated them, since so many of us have been treated similarly but did not kill anyone.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Problem is that the more you contextualize something like crime, the more deterministic it becomes. At maximum level of taking everything possible into context, nobody is responsible for anything, because there wont be anyone anymore, just a giant deterministic process. So at local, human level, the courts, legal system operates on heuristic judgements.

It's based on power dynamics and thats it. They just arbitrarily decide what amount and type of context they consider valid, and which is invalid. For instance, idk, some violent guy kills a woman. Well technically, if the woman hadnt been there, she wouldnt have been killed. So we can always characterize any event as accidental right? But this would logically mean that we can not hold anyone responsible for anything.

So how do they objectively decide which context elements to include and which to exclude. By what magical standard is this selection happening? The answer is that it isnt. It is arbitrary. They base it of their own feelings, the authority of their feelings. The general feelings are then encoded into law and systematically enforced using soft- and hard-violence. This is the only possible answer. Now, for normies of course this is kinda brutal.

The reason its brutal, and I also dont get this myself btw, is because the implication is that any society, literally every single society is basically necessarily built in authoritarianism. The legal system has to be arbitrary and build on raw power dynamics because there is no other way. The entire society has to be built that way. People feel free because they act within the confines and values instilled in them by the system they are subject to. But this freedom is illusory, they are living in a system that is as restrictive as any "totalitarian" system ever in history, but it just doesnt feel that way, because they are part of it, they embody it and defend it.

Think about the impliations. If this is true, then there can be no democracy. None of these idea of equality, of good rulership matter. Every society must default to some form of authorotarian rule, be it from hidden oligarchs, corporations and conglomerates lobbying, deep state - it doesnt matter. If no objective standard can be determined to make these judgements about people, then every single system becomes arbitrary rule of force, based on human nature expressing itself, it's inherent values.

It becomes deterministic, "facistic" whatever you want to call it. Freedom is a complete meme then, there is no freedom in this. Democracy can not be real, not because it is "worse" than other systems or some stupid shit like that no, no - democracy is logically impossible, because if nobody can make an objective choice, then democracy is just rule by violence. Whoever controls the mob, controls society -> ergo, propganda becomes tool of control in so called democratic societies (bernays, lippman bla bla).

So to answer your question - why do they not take more context into account when dealing with school shooters or similiar cases? They dont FEEL that it matters, and then they enforce the feelings using authority given to them by government, which itself is just biggest mafia organization around at the moment. The difference between organized government and organized crime is zero. Just one has more power to legitimize itself and make citizens believe it is somehow a legitimate entity.

Another way we can see how arbitrary and feelings based this gets is by looking how women or meeks type criminals are judged compared to others. We have seen the studies where women or good looking criminals get lower sentences - this is 100% feelings based. The court, people only invoke context or cry for more "nouanced" handling of cases if they feel the perpetrator should get off easy, usually cuz its a woman or something.

So when it suits them they suddenly go OH LETS LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE OH SHES A YOUNG GIRL, OMG MAYBE HER DAD ABUSED HER bla bla. People have complained about this exact thing for 100s of years, Gustave le bon wrote about french courts going easy on women in the 1800s already. Its feelings first, then law. If they feel bad for the perpetrator they invoke context and other shit to lower the sentence. If they dont like the perpetrator, like with school shooters, then they do the opposite, they disregard context more and more, to, again, advance their own feelings.

We can still try to detach from emotion to look at the context so we can reach group corporation. On top of this, we could also probably try to imploy fourth generation war tactics so we can be more efficient as a whole.

This whole empathy stuff is nothing but a tool for normies to attain moral superiority and signal their virtues to other cattle. We know this.

However something that I never see discussed anywhere, not even here (Joined Mar 27, 2026) is how the lack of empathy for criminals effectively blocks society from truly advancing.

The argumentation shall be general in nature as I am not equipped with the tools nor the will to tackle each individual type of crime sequentially. Please keep in mind that I am not advocating for people to commit crimes, nor I am supporting the belief that crime is acceptable at all, generally (can we really consider a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to eat, a crime, even though the law does treat it as so? I'll come back to this later).

Crime is presently treated as something akin to an indelible sin. Criminals are subject to social ostracization, occupational ostracization, prevention from getting jobs, and, due to an error they committed, their entire life is ruined. Fair enough, maybe; after all, if the collective, an individual, or a group of individuals is hurt in a meaningful way, there should be a sanction to re-establish a balance of sorts.

The main point I want to put forward is quite straightforward: both the social and legal aspects of dealing with crime are insufficient to maintain even the flimsiest of balanced, and ultimately preclude humanity from advancing and awakening, beginning to address the most deeply rooted flaws in the systems of society.

The legal aspect shall be liquidated without too deep of a dive, for I am not a jurist, nor an ex-convict. The most obvious and glaring contradiction in the system is that nominally, the convicted criminal is subject to re-education and the inmate's re-admission into civil society is facilitated, but in practice neither of these two things occur. Inmates are treated worse than insects, are never re-educated, and in countries like the USA, they are exploited for the profit of private companies. Once inmates get out of jail, the rate of 2nd incarceration is (relatively) very high, symptom of a failed readmission. Think about veterans going back to the USA and being treated like shit by both the cattle and those who should've helped them most, the institutions. This is not that far off.

However I wanted to deal with the social aspect of crime aftermath: stigmatization.

People tend to look at crime in a purely emotional way. Besides those who are inconvenienced by a crime being perpetrated (what I'm trying to say, besides people who are murdered, their family, friends etc, besides those who suffer the consequences of an arson etc, basically those who are on the receiving end of a crime being committed), there should be no reason for people to only look at crime through those blurry lenses of emotion.

First of all, people tend to assign negative moral labels to criminals, even if they are alleged criminals and haven't been proven as such yet. The public seems to require labelling of this sort for two reasons: to distance themselves from the act in itself; to signal to others their own moral virtues. However, emotional behaviors of these sorts has only one effect: negating any possibility of redemption to the criminal. In short, it never began.

In addition to that, people only "empathize" with the victim or perceived victim of a crime. For all those from the USA, consider whenever a school shooting occurs. There has been developed in the course of these past 2 decades an all-encompassing protocol for dealing with a school shooting and the aftermath of such an event. The press must not publish photos of the shooter; focus must be solely on the victims and the school; the shooter must be labelled as "crazy", "not lucid" or other such terms...

What do such behaviours accomplish? For a relatively short amount of time, the victims' families and other mourners meight feel that the burden is shared with other people, but that feeling is short-lived and people do not really care about such things happening, if it doesn't benefit their own ego first and foremost.

What has always fascinated me about how school shootings are handled in public discourse is how no thought is put into the perpetrator. Sure, he sparged out and killed a bunch of teens, but why did he sperg out? Why did he reach a breaking point and decided to commit such an extreme act (which almost always ends in suicide)? These questions are never asked.

Free will does not exist. It is a lie, kept alive to protect the perceived moral superiority that the individual feels regarding himself, for determinism postulates that under the same circumstances, the supposedly morally superior normie would act the same way as the repugnant shooter.

Often enough, those who are victims are also perpetrators. Often enough, those who judge have been judging for far longer.

I took the example of school shooters because it is the most easy to understand, but this same very analysis applies to other crimes, both violent and non-violent.

If people started thinking more, they would ask the correct questions, regarding the shooter's infancy, teenage years, family life, social life, inner psyche. They would try to comprehend the circumstances and the motivations behind the shooter's actions, and, perhaps a utopian possibility, they'd move to ensure that such circumstances cannot possiby exist anymore. In brief, they would try to feel empathy for the shooter's condition. Once again, I do not condone criminal actions, nor do I wish to paint criminals in a totally positive light. I wish for them to not be painted in a completely negative light, and I wish for a time when people could look at a criminal and try to understand what happened and why, in order to improve society (a construction that is indispensable in this day and age for survival) in such a way that such episodes might not occur anymore.

Spoiler: Tagging people who I think might be interested

@GeckoBus @WastedPotential @AtrociousCitizen @The Notorious SLAV @St3v3Cel @DjentlemanDuke @Giracel @EmperorCaligula @UndeadDeadMan @esdeathlover @Freixel @picklecel @UnluckyPrimate
Sorry if you do not wish to be tagged please let me know if so

I agree with all of this and it's not like we should be light on crime, just obviously contextualize the crimes, like there should be execution for gang graffiti, for aggravated shoplifting, when the shoplifter physically resists or credibly threatens to resist security, and stuff like that, and for murder or improperly ((unprovoked)) assault causing significant injury. All that should be death for sure but in the case of some sort of mass attack, we should take a better look, I mean, we know most mass shooters were ostrichized and bullied and we know being bullied and ostracized is worse than being raped and fatherless so we should clearly set a better precedent for handling cases like that, there's this new psyop being pushed where they're actually trying to assert that these mass attackers weren't bullied and ostracized by their peers and that they were in fact actually top dog bullies who were just psychopaths, this is obviously absurd and has set the contextualization of reaction based crimes back eons. I think public beatings for theft, ordinary graffiti, dropping chewing gum on the sidewalk should suffice though if the offender cannot make seven fold restitution. Also public beatings for improperly provoked assault that does not cause significant injury. (An assault is improperly provoked when the assailant initiates bad behaviour, and then commits assault in response to other people objecting, when he should have reasonably expected that such objection was likely) so we should set in stone that ostrichization is worse than rape so it should by extention help reaction crimes in general since you would understand the reasonable objections to it.

 

[UnluckyPrimate]

People tend to look at crime in a purely emotional way. Besides those who are inconvenienced by a crime being perpetrated (what I'm trying to say, besides people who are murdered, their family, friends etc, besides those who suffer the consequences of an arson etc, basically those who are on the receiving end of a crime being committed), there should be no reason for people to only look at crime through those blurry lenses of emotion.

The values that have been instilled in these people as a result of their conditioning cause them to react in such ways, humans are emotional creatures especially women, when a crime is committed (a defiance to social norms) those who follow said norms feel personally attacked as if they were being infected with blood clots. This is how conditioning is successful, you start the conditioning on prepubescent children and you make them emotionally/psychologically dependent on artificial abstractions, such as morality in this case. Didn’t finish reading but just wanted to comment on that.

 

[yeetbender_]

High IQ

 

[yeetbender_]

I should be given a slap on the wrist for touching a whore's ass or tiddies.

 

[Fatalistocrat]

What has always fascinated me about how school shootings are handled in public discourse is how no thought is put into the perpetrator. Sure, he sparged out and killed a bunch of teens, but why did he sperg out? Why did he reach a breaking point and decided to commit such an extreme act (which almost always ends in suicide)? These questions are never asked.

I was always wondering this too. Almost every time I see a something about mass shooters online, the comments are either virtue signaling for the victims of the crime and stopping there. Others are insulting the criminal for a similar reason of showing other midwits that “I am morally superior because I am badmouthing a criminal, who is always the bad guy!”

Once in a while, I see somebody who asks about what could have caused a shooter to shoot innocent people, and they either say “because he’s a loser/dork/violent psychopath” or ask the op why they’re focusing on the criminal instead of the victims, essentially branding that question as something inappropriate and barring it from the discussion completely.

There is little thought in the minds of the masses that goes into the criminals’ lives, experiences, and motives that led up to the killings. Elliot Rodgers is slammed online for being an “insecure crybaby virgin”, which is not even the tip top of the iceberg for everything that led up to his attacks considering he at the very least showed that whatever methods of treatment done for his mental disorders was flawed/temporary/ineffective in the long run and should be looked into more. Adam Lanza was branded a freak and monster by the internet solely based on his actions and partly his appearance when said actions were mainly a result from other factors such as his severe, untreated mental illness and his unrestricted access to firearms on top of that. I’ve even seen a bunch of retards say Marc Lepine shot over a dozen women because he was an incel, when a lack of sex even the primary motive for the shooting.

Barely anything goes into consideration about the possibility that there are dozens of other Lanzas, Rodgers, Lepines, and etc. out there who are on the verge of going down the same path, and even less goes into what these types of criminals are beyond calling them psychopaths, monsters, and horrible people. Imagine being in that same pickle as those types of people, and everyone around you are praise-seeking numbskulls calling you a dork, edgelord, or any other insult rather than actually trying to help.

There seems to be a moral leverage people crave when it comes to empathizing with only the victims of a crime. Most people cannot even fathom somebody being considerate for the shooter on the sole fact that the shooter was responsible for the deaths of other people. They will immediately jump to the conclusion that you are romanticizing with the killer because you are empathizing or even curious with and about them because they crave praise and reassurance from their own actions that their morals are squeaky clean. As a result they will do anything, even if it comes to making their own bullshit arguments with pathos, to slam the empathizing.

The truth is most of these people care about the victims of any mass shooting as much as they would care about the shooter themselves in the long run. To them, every incident is just another opportunity to prove that they are morally superior in the masses. Nothing will be done for the families and friends of the victims and nothing will be done for those who are on the same dangerous and irreversible path that more people will continue to suffer from.

It’s basically a farm for them: antagonize, belittle, and refuse to help the very people who will kill others; when people die from the result of their negligence, they fake empathy and farm praise and feed their egoes. Finally, use that as justification to “prove” why these types of people are vile freaks who don’t deserve anything, and the cycle goes on and on and on. If anybody is the monster here, it’s honestly them.

 

[tired as fuck]

You hear crazy stories about a black guy killing somebody and it turns out he's got 20+ previous convictions.

This is something that isn't discounted by my (very superficial and imperfect) analysis, actually. When you offer no real possibilities of integration and reintegration into society, what else will a person who has grown up in a particular environment and with (possibly) a suitable mental configuration to commit crime do? Of course that person will commit crime again, it's all they know! Plus, prisons are just universities of crime...

Most criminals are not poor Aladdins stealing bread because they are dying of hunger.

Well most criminals aren't murderers either, the most common crimes are what Americans I believe would call petty crimes and misdemeanors, not felonies (true in all of the west to my knowledge).

Maybe you see yourself in them because you were bullied or you desire to get even with the world

Not really, I just ponder the question of what would happen had society not gave up on these people, y'know. Columbine was telegraphed in a way, if you really think about it, it wasn't sudden but premeditated. There are hundreds of school shootings a year in the USA, hundreds! And people still refuse to try and understand the circumstances to try and do something about them, because for good to exist there must first exist evil, and evil is defined as school shooters in this case. Keeping up the dichotomy is more beneficial to the general public than trying to do something about the existence of people like that.

I think that if you do truly look into these cases more, you'll find that their violence is explained more by their psychotic nature than by how people treated them, since so many of us have been treated similarly but did not kill anyone.

Yeah well I did mention "their psyche" when evaluating their conditions that brought them to commit the act. I don't think most criminals are well-adjusted normies, in order to commit a crime you kinda have to have some psychological divergence from the cattle mind if it makes sense.

sympathy

What I would like isn't sympathy, but empathy. Though I say that, I am of the belief that empathy is impossible, though my model of interpreting reality that produced such a belief is just as arbitrary as it can get. However, even without using those two words, what I think would benefit everyone is to try and understand without employing morality just how a person got to the point of committing the act of crime.

Thank you for the reply!!

 

[tired as fuck]

I was always wondering this too. Almost every time I see a something about mass shooters online, the comments are either virtue signaling for the victims of the crime and stopping there. Others are insulting the criminal for a similar reason of showing other midwits that “I am morally superior because I am badmouthing a criminal, who is always the bad guy!”

Once in a while, I see somebody who asks about what could have caused a shooter to shoot innocent people, and they either say “because he’s a loser/dork/violent psychopath” or ask the op why they’re focusing on the criminal instead of the victims, essentially branding that question as something inappropriate and barring it from the discussion completely.

There is little thought in the minds of the masses that goes into the criminals’ lives, experiences, and motives that led up to the killings. Elliot Rodgers is slammed online for being an “insecure crybaby virgin”, which is not even the tip top of the iceberg for everything that led up to his attacks considering he at the very least showed that whatever methods of treatment done for his mental disorders was flawed/temporary/ineffective in the long run and should be looked into more. Adam Lanza was branded a freak and monster by the internet solely based on his actions and partly his appearance when said actions were mainly a result from other factors such as his severe, untreated mental illness and his unrestricted access to firearms on top of that. I’ve even seen a bunch of retards say Marc Lepine shot over a dozen women because he was an incel, when a lack of sex even the primary motive for the shooting.

Barely anything goes into consideration about the possibility that there are dozens of other Lanzas, Rodgers, Lepines, and etc. out there who are on the verge of going down the same path, and even less goes into what these types of criminals are beyond calling them psychopaths, monsters, and horrible people. Imagine being in that same pickle as those types of people, and everyone around you are praise-seeking numbskulls calling you a dork, edgelord, or any other insult rather than actually trying to help.

There seems to be a moral leverage people crave when it comes to empathizing with only the victims of a crime. Most people cannot even fathom somebody being considerate for the shooter on the sole fact that the shooter was responsible for the deaths of other people. They will immediately jump to the conclusion that you are romanticizing with the killer because you are empathizing or even curious with and about them because they crave praise and reassurance from their own actions that their morals are squeaky clean. As a result they will do anything, even if it comes to making their own bullshit arguments with pathos, to slam the empathizing.

The truth is most of these people care about the victims of any mass shooting as much as they would care about the shooter themselves in the long run. To them, every incident is just another opportunity to prove that they are morally superior in the masses. Nothing will be done for the families and friends of the victims and nothing will be done for those who are on the same dangerous and irreversible path that more people will continue to suffer from.

It’s basically a farm for them: antagonize, belittle, and refuse to help the very people who will kill others; when people die from the result of their negligence, they fake empathy and farm praise and feed their egoes. Finally, use that as justification to “prove” why these types of people are vile freaks who don’t deserve anything, and the cycle goes on and on and on. If anybody is the monster here, it’s honestly them.

There is nothing for me to add to this. You have put into words what I've been thinking regarding victims and how they're treated by the general public for years at this point. Strongest 26th post on this site wtf, gray hands typed this. Welcome to the site man and thank you for the long answer, this is abbarrage of TRVTH NVKES.

 

[tired as fuck]

The values that have been instilled in these people as a result of their conditioning cause them to react in such ways, humans are emotional creatures especially women, when a crime is committed (a defiance to social norms) those who follow said norms feel personally attacked as if they were being infected with blood clots. This is how conditioning is successful, you start the conditioning on prepubescent children and you make them emotionally/psychologically dependent on artificial abstractions, such as morality in this case. Didn’t finish reading but just wanted to comment on that.

I really do think the same, that people have been essentially brainwashed by the educational system (vicariously, the State) to internalize and root deeply into their consciousness a series of tenets and beliefs that we may as well call bluepilled by extension. People don't really think about them (meta-thought I guess) because they were never taught to, the State doesn't require smart and aware citizens. Thank you for replying man, even if you didn't read it all I still appreciate it.

 

[UnluckyPrimate]

I really do think the same, that people have been essentially brainwashed by the educational system (vicariously, the State) to internalize and root deeply into their consciousness a series of tenets and beliefs that we may as well call bluepilled by extension. People don't really think about them (meta-thought I guess) because they were never taught to, the State doesn't require smart and aware citizens. Thank you for replying man, even if you didn't read it all I still appreciate it.

I have finished reading an agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to quickly touch up on that one part because it stuck out to me. The inherent negative moralization of criminals and their acts is something that is deeply rooted in cultural conditioning/indoctrination like a lot of our behaviors are.

 

[tired as fuck]

I have finished reading an agree with your sentiment, I just wanted to quickly touch up on that one part because it stuck out to me. The inherent negative moralization of criminals and their acts is something that is deeply rooted in cultural conditioning/indoctrination like a lot of our behaviors are.

Gotta thank Christianity I suppose

 

[tired as fuck]

Problem is that the more you contextualize something like crime, the more deterministic it becomes. At maximum level of taking everything possible into context, nobody is responsible for anything, because there wont be anyone anymore, just a giant deterministic process.

I disagree. Logically speaking, the matter of determinism vs. free will is indeterminable. There might be a cutoff point where an individual performs a choice, in spite of the deterministic restrictions... we will never know. Still, pragmatically there is a necessity to take a stance I guess, but at the same time said stance places burden on humans wholly. Not acknowledging the deterministic input is in bad faith imo.

For instance, idk, some violent guy kills a woman. Well technically, if the woman hadnt been there, she wouldnt have been killed. So we can always characterize any event as accidental right?

Premeditated murders do exist, I'd hardly call them accidental.

So how do they objectively decide which context elements to include and which to exclude. By what magical standard is this selection happening?

The law has a lot of inconsistencies, but maybe a lawyer/jurist would be able to reply to you. Even though since that person is inside of the system, there would be innate biases blah blah.

The reason its brutal, and I also dont get this myself btw, is because the implication is that any society, literally every single society is basically necessarily built in authoritarianism.

Perhaps small societies where each offense is judged in a town hall esque setting would be preferable in this regard, but unfortunately the scale of our societies only allow for State monopolies, which, removing all the jargon, are literally just dictatorships that appear to be just. In reality, justice, merit and freedom do not exist in these societies. Since these societies make up the entirety of the West, it's fair to say that these things are not embodied in any way inside these societies.

The legal system has to be arbitrary and build on raw power dynamics because there is no other way. The entire society has to be built that way.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes. Now we can take it a step forward and characterize every human system in this way.

People feel free because they act within the confines and values instilled in them by the system they are subject to. But this freedom is illusory, they are living in a system that is as restrictive as any "totalitarian" system ever in history, but it just doesnt feel that way, because they are part of it, they embody it and defend it.

I don't know what else to say, you put it perfectly.

Whoever controls the mob, controls society -> ergo, propganda becomes tool of control in so called democratic societies (bernays, lippman bla bla).

Bad mustache guy said this 100 yrs ago and he wasn't wrong at all seeing what happened afterwards. The cattle is kept in a state of torpor and illusory contentment but in reality they are being constantly harvested by the ruling class.

They dont FEEL that it matters, and then they enforce the feelings using authority given to them by government, which itself is just biggest mafia organization around at the moment. The difference between organized government and organized crime is zero. Just one has more power to legitimize itself and make citizens believe it is somehow a legitimate entity.

Southern Italians know this all too well, that the State and the Mafia families are the same concept. It's honestly uncanny to read it from someone who isn't from around here x).

Gustave le bon wrote about french courts going easy on women in the 1800s already. Its feelings first, then law.

Also Bax, in his essays on feminism. Read them due to one of your posts. Thank you for the lengthy reply man, always a pleasure reading your stuff, but frankly I feel like my post is very unstructured and schizoid, it's nothing like your posts.

 

[tired as fuck]

interesting, it's late for me now. but remind me tomorrow to read this. Thanks for the tag

Early bird catches the , here's your reminder (eat the bugs)

 

[Misogynist Vegeta]

I totally 100% disagree, I think it's the opposite we should empathize with perpetrators of crimes way less than society currently does. Almost Every other day there is story about some piece of garbage scumbag who murdered someone after being dealt a light sentence from left wing judge because the judge had a lot empathy for the situation the criminal found themselves in. You are an example of someone who has been psyop'd by society into believing that most criminals are the kinds of people who are stealing just to survive when they are actually just niggers who steal because they can. They stole my electric bike and the police did nothing about it because that's what they are told to do, These scum need to be properly punished instead of getting a light slap on the wrist.

 

[tired as fuck]

I totally 100% disagree, I think it's the opposite we should empathize with perpetrators of crimes way less than society currently does. Almost Every other day there is story about some piece of garbage scumbag who murdered someone after being dealt a light sentence from left wing judge because the judge had a lot empathy for the situation the criminal found themselves in. You are an example of someone who has been psyop'd by society into believing that most criminals are the kinds of people who are stealing just to survive when they are actually just niggers who steal because they can. They stole my electric bike and the police did nothing about it because that's what they are told to do, These scum need to be properly punished instead of getting a light slap on the wrist.

With all due respect, I am not led by society to have this opinion because the society around me does not hold such an opinion. I don't know where you're from, but in my country committing crimes is seen in neither ways, but in a third way, as something that is good to do if you don't get found out. Malice is seen as astuteness, taking advantage of others is a virtue. This is a truly 3rd world belief, which I am disgusted by, but at the same time I do not look at criminals as if they chose to do crime, it would be quite a clash with a view of a predominantly deterministic world. I witness crime being committed every day, I have been a victim of theft (got mugged in the streets), but I still hold this opinion of mine.

The police being useless is a true point you bring up.

If I may, the things you have read sound like that experience left a painful mark. I don't blame you, I'm sure it would also leave that same mark on me, especially because e-bikes are fucking expensive.

In my view, a society where the law is very tough on crime is a society that I wouldn't want to be a part of, because that would mean the State would wind up having even more power and control than it already has, which is something I am in adversity to. Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but I really think that there are ways of reducing crime such as the ones I briefly outlined in my OP.

All the same, thank you for taking the time out to read my post and replying to it.

 

[RoboCel]

Its feelings first, then law. If they feel bad for the perpetrator they invoke context and other shit to lower the sentence. If they dont like the perpetrator, like with school shooters, then they do the opposite, they disregard context more and more, to, again, advance their own feelings.

 

[WastedPotential]

Early bird catches the , here's your reminder (eat the bugs)

I agree with the idea that most criminals, especially in the U.S. are treated as second-class citizens once they're released.

I also think that this perception stems from their faith in rehabilitation programs. It's a feedback loop really.
Most people have a negative perception / pessimistic view of the rehabilitation programs in the U.S. Prison system. So they expect that most criminals that come out are going to stay criminals because prison are more for-profit anyway in the U.S. and they don't invest in those programs.

I think that if you look at it from country to country the stigmatization might be quite different.

The classic example ofcourse is norway.
The recidivism rate for released prisoners is amongst the lowest in the world. And the vast majority of released criminals in norway find employment.

Both in contrast to the U.S. by the way. Both countries are considered first-world countries by the way.
Now I'm not saying that there is no stigmatization at all. Ofcourse having a criminal past will always have it's downsides. But yeah.

==================================================================

And I think that people do actually care about the motivations of let's say school shooters for example (many other crimes too though).
In fact it's quite a meme that most forensic psychologists are women. And that many women are into true crime podcasts etc.
People in general tend to have a degree of morbid curiosity. (But for women this fascination is also often motivated because of the looks of the killers, whether they show dark triad tendencies etc. (aka degeneracy; see hybristophilia))

However, what I've observed is that usually you'll find that the closer people are to the misery/criminal happenings the more hardline they will be.

Take El salvador for example and Cecot. El salvador had one of the largest homicide rates globally. since the implementation of the very strict policies by bukele, it has dropped to one of the lowest. But not for free.
When you look at CECOT it's quite an inhumane facility and human rights orgs have pointed this out.
However these human rights organizations are observing and judging the situation from a position of relative privilege. Most of these people didn't live in the crime-infested slums of el salvador or had family members murdered by or join gangs. So they have less stake in it.

Norway is a much more wealthy and developed country and very few people experience the worst sides of humanity. So my theory is that as a result they tend to develop programs more 'empathetic' where the focus is on rehabilitation.

====================================================================

I also want to touch on why stigmatization of crime exists and the naming and shaming of criminals.

Some argue that being hard on crime is a necessary evil done as a preventive measure to prevent a society from collapsing into anarchy.
It might not be fair, because sometimes judges will be very hard on a criminal to 'make an example out of them' as to discourage others.
But that's the price paid to maintain public order.

==========================================================

as for your wish for criminals to be treated with diligence and curiosity in the context of how they became that way as a form of empathy. I agree that is how things should be, but i don't think t's realistic.

Our society has grown so large that the law is more of a factory. rather than let's say a skilled artisan.
What I mean is that in order for justice to be fair when you have to deal with so many legal cases in a relatively short amount of time and limtied resources. Well then you are forced to cut corners.

Laws become standardized and coded and ideally in that system everybody gets the same sentence for the same crime, but reality is obviously more complicated. So local judges and prosecutors get the privilege to give their own judgement with the intention of making justice fair and equal everywhere. But judges can be corrupted and they have biases.

So what you end up with is a system where only the rich, popular or viral criminal cases are held under the most scrutiny. It's only them that get the privilge of people wanting to look into their past to understand how they came to be. Even post-mortem (jeffrey dahmer for example)

=================================================

I'm sorry if my writing is a bit chaotic, I didn't really know where to start to respond or how to respond. So i'm sorry if I missed something. Feel free to ask me a question.

 

[UndeadDeadMan]

Normies would have to care about cause and effect for something like this to budge. The problem is, if they started caring about that, the system and its narratives would collapse. So what the system does - via TV, social media, even schools, etc. - is incentivize them to NOT care about cause and effect. Think about a giant squid using its various tentacles and arms to hold down prey.

It's like how DOOM was blamed for the Columbine Shooting for decades. Turns out, in the 2026 memoir, we have this interesting piece of information:

She discusses her own humanity as well by outlining her blindness to her son’s depression and unhappiness, and to his plan to kill. At one point in the book, when, during his high school years, he forgets Mother’s Day, Klebold snaps with frustration and shoves him against the fridge.

Who the hell shoves her son against a fridge for forgetting mother's day? I don't even celebrate my own birthday anymore, for years now. She was triggered about mother's day?!

Anyway, there are three points here I want to address, which make this problem more complex than it appears to be at face-value:

• When dealing with certain types of criminals, you have to stop them in some way or another, regardless of free will existing or not. This is to prevent further deaths/damages.
  • If the criminal is arrested but not killed, we have the conditions to do this:

  • ask the correct questions, regarding the shooter's infancy, teenage years, family life, social life, inner psyche. They would try to comprehend the circumstances and the motivations behind the shooter's actions, and, perhaps a utopian possibility, they'd move to ensure that such circumstances cannot possiby exist anymore

  • If the criminal is killed, we have one less source of information, which leads us to the next point...
• You can't rely on normies to give you accurate information. Due to the entrenchment of political correctness in our society, important details will be omitted - either forever, or for a set period of time (see the fridge incident above). Political correctness also causes people to be less articulate - in this case, they're not hiding anything per se, but they're not articulate enough to properly explain what happened.
  • Accurate data requires independent research using modern technology, including modern medical exams & procedures, genetic analysis (e.g. via WGS), and independent information gathering techniques, for example using voice/video recording of certain events (while taking into account consent laws). The only other ways I see of obtaining this valuable information is via unauthorized data access - this is explicitly illegal and I do not condone its use, but I know e.g. a foid that found out her father was cheating on her mother by checking the father's browser history, conversations and files.
• Last but most pernicious - human laws portray themselves as stable and fixed, much like the laws of physics, but they are not. We saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic, how laws and policies can change rather quickly, which leads to laughable effects such as €135 fines to homeless people for not staying indoors. In my country, an old lady was fined €200 for chewing gum in a park. I was almost charged for suspicions of leaving my county... even though I only went outside to buy groceries .
  • Notice that you are never consulted for amendments to laws. The powers that be set these changes, and you have to just put up and shut up:
    

    So how do they objectively decide which context elements to include and which to exclude. By what magical standard is this selection happening? The answer is that it isnt. It is arbitrary. They base it of their own feelings, the authority of their feelings. The general feelings are then encoded into law and systematically enforced using soft- and hard-violence. This is the only possible answer

    Once again, the system and its various tentacles (TV, schools, etc.) train people with this notion that laws are stable and that they can be relied on to ensure safety. In reality, these laws and their elements adapt to "shifting moral principles", which really means "shifts in feelings".

So, the first point is mostly a logistical one, and it might be the hardest of the 3 to address.
The second point is basically normies being retarded, which could be addressed with independent info gathering - might be the easiest of the three to solve, so it could be a good starting point
The third point is also difficult to address, because it depends on the values and motivations of those in power.

 

[tired as fuck]

The classic example ofcourse is norway.
The recidivism rate for released prisoners is amongst the lowest in the world. And the vast majority of released criminals in norway find employment.

Yes but have you seen the inmates' cells? They are living better off than peeps in 3-4 stars hotels JFL. Plus inmate programs, communities and rehabilitation facilities. That is precisely my point, if every nation treated inmates along those lines we'd all be better off.

And I think that people do actually care about the motivations of let's say school shooters for example (many other crimes too though).
In fact it's quite a meme that most forensic psychologists are women. And that many women are into true crime podcasts etc.
People in general tend to have a degree of morbid curiosity.

I'm very sorry but I do not see the link between the first sentence and the rest of the quote. Moreover, do people actually care about the motivation of crime?

El salvador

I think you're underestimating how bad it was in El Salvador: you couldn't go out past 5 PM because it'd be full of gang members and rapists; gangs controlled pretty much the entire country and made it impossible to live in peace; racketeering; and an array of other crimes being committed daily. Those situations require a dictator because it's close to being anarchy, so might as well put in power a dude with balls to restore the country, and it has worked. Now, how do you maintain this newfound order? That is something I have no answer to yet.

It might not be fair, because sometimes judges will be very hard on a criminal to 'make an example out of them' as to discourage others.
But that's the price paid to maintain public order.

I think it's a load of bullshit, "making an example out of someone". That person was just unlucky enough to be chosen to have an arbitrarily tougher sentence because the judge felt like being that guy. Where's the justice and fairness in this?

What I mean is that in order for justice to be fair when you have to deal with so many legal cases in a relatively short amount of time and limtied resources. Well then you are forced to cut corners.

The justice system in my country is notoriously slow, and it isn't because of understaffing let me tell you that. These motherfuckers are paid a huge sum and if they can milk their client for years, they will. Also, bureaucracy lengthens cases on purpose.

I'm sorry if my writing is a bit chaotic, I didn't really know where to start to respond or how to respond. So i'm sorry if I missed something. Feel free to ask me a question.

Not at all, I actually think that my OP was very chaotic. Thank you for taking the time out to read my post, I appreciate it!!

 

[tired as fuck]

Normies would have to care about cause and effect for something like this to budge. The problem is, if they started caring about that, the system and its narratives would collapse. So what the system does - via TV, social media, even schools, etc. - is incentivize them to NOT care about cause and effect.

That is definitely true.

Who the hell shoves her son against a fridge for forgetting mother's day? I don't even celebrate my own birthday anymore, for years now. She was triggered about mother's day?!

Eh, my mother uses her foid energy to guilt-trip me whenever I forget one of these festivities. consoomeristic and meaningless either way. Same goes with birthdays.

You can't rely on normies to give you accurate information. Due to the entrenchment of political correctness in our society, important details will be omitted - either forever, or for a set period of time (see the fridge incident above). Political correctness also causes people to be less articulate - in this case, they're not hiding anything per se, but they're not articulate enough to properly explain what happened.

I think I see your point, but more than PC I'd say it's social desirability bias or something along those lines, they don't want to say the truth because they fear social repercussions onto themselves. Imagine if you asked someone "is it true that you bullied this guy daily with such cruelty that you'd cause him to break and commit a school shooting and kill 17 students and 3 teachers?", would you seriously expect an honest and honorable (in a certain way) "yes that is true"? No, of fucking course not, he's going to lie about it 100.

but I know e.g. a foid that found out her father was cheating on her mother by checking the father's browser history, conversations and files.

Curiously enough I know one such foid too.

Last but most pernicious

I can't add anything of value to this last point, it's all exactly how I think.

So, the first point is mostly a logistical one, and it might be the hardest of the 3 to address.
The second point is basically normies being retarded, which could be addressed with independent info gathering - might be the easiest of the three to solve, so it could be a good starting point
The third point is also difficult to address, because it depends on the values and motivations of those in power.

Never began
JFL at this clown world.

thank you lots for reading my schizopost and replying to it! I really appreciate it.

 

[NIGGA BANBAN]

They do for attractive criminals or people that belong to their tribe (like foids defending foid killers or niggers their own).

 

[tired as fuck]

They do for attractive criminals or people that belong to their tribe (like foids defending foid killers or niggers their own).

not even, they just fawn over them or be like "free my nigga he ain't do nun wrong" but what I'm proposing is different

 

[NIGGA BANBAN]

not even, they just fawn over them or be like "free my nigga he ain't do nun wrong" but what I'm proposing is different

They won't.

Simple as.

But for more in depth(hope this makes sense):

Think of it like this. To empathize with them(killers) it would be like for us to empathize with furries or bornies or other people you could say are taboo to speak of in any light other than negative. Like lolcows for example. Just like they don't see outcasts as people, we have our own share of "enemies" we don't consider as human nor care to understand/sympathize with. It's all social games. Why would you want to label yourself as someone caring for a person below your standing? It also comes with the fact that they did something "wrong" or taboo, which gives them a right to make fun out of them and treat them like garbage, despite arguably not being any different morality wise.

"OOOOH this guy killed people!!"

But then would laugh at someone ugly, and they'll tell them "if I were you I'd kill myself" or beat them down to social breakdown. All this morality talk. All these sperg outs about "muh evil" are things only made for purpose of virtue signaling. I'd like to go more in depth with it, but shortly, normies have no morals. Their whole existence is a walking contradiction.

They'd get mad at Peter Scully memes, all while reposting jokes about Epstein(as if it were not also making light out of child trafficking and abuse). They'd talk about how rape is something not be talked or jokes lightly about, but then make jokes about criminals getting raped in jail(shooters especially). They'd virtue signal about the groomings and whatnot, while giving their children premission to drink, drive, do drugs, make them watch sexual scenes in movies to show them "what real man looks like". In any other world, all of these things would've been considered disgusting, yet they're only so if someone ugly or out of the order does it. So why?

In the end, why do they make edits and reposts for Richard Ramirez especially (some getting in 10k+ likes), but can't with shooters? Because serial killers like him belonged to normies. If he weren't a killer, he would've been an average Chad slayer accepted by the normies. They protect and defend those closer to their own status and level.(At least in my theory). An attractive person, even as a criminal, is seen decently high on a social status totem pole compared to some shooter pipsqueak who went ER over bullying.

Those men had power.

They were bullies and we'll adjusted. Notice how women almost always make fun of shooters and talk shit about them more than killers? Because most of them, when you stripe down all the psychopathic traits are just normies who kill for thrill or mental illness. Without it, they would've been just as normal and successful, if not even boring as everyday normie, which is why they find it easier to find why or how they snapped. Do you ever see videos asking about what life choices led to someone turning ER or into a mass shooter? I've seen it for serial killers. It's because those men are outcasts. They don't want to get someone who they don't consider on their level.


Do you care when you stomp a cockroach or a house centipede? Do you ever ask why and they're in your house? Why and what do they even do? No you don't.

You stomp them and take them out.

That's what they're to them.

Filthy cockroaches that can only be understood as pests soon to be stomped once again. Pretty dumb I think, but hopefully it makes sense.

 

[UndeadDeadMan]

Eh, my mother uses her foid energy to guilt-trip me whenever I forget one of these festivities. consoomeristic and meaningless either way. Same goes with birthdays.

My point is, if the mother shoved her son against the fridge, there's probably other things she's done to him that caused that instability. She was probably being selective in that memoir to avoid social repercussions.

I forgot to mention one of the reasons for the lack of scrutiny in this scenario, although it should be obvious for most of us in this forum - Sue Klebold is a female, the shooters are male, and DOOM/Duke Nukem are popular videogames among males. Sound familiar? Replace with Elliot Rodger's mom and stepmom (females), Elliot Rodger himself (male) and World of Warcraft (popular game among males). The women are always scrutinized last, IF AT ALL, due to gynocentrism. This is unfortunate, because may never understand the cause-effect chain behind these tragedies to a satisfactory degree.

By the time certain details come out (e.g. the fridge incident, pointing to signs of a dysfunctional family), 17 years have passed. That's 17 years of lawmakers trying to get videogames like DOOM, Duke Nukem or GTA banned because "they cause school shootings hurr durr". 17 years of additional bullying done to kids that "look like they could do a school shooting". 17 years of bullshit red herrings that lead to nowhere but even more unnecessary suffering. 17 years of disgusting virtue signaling. A trail of destruction that very few are able to see...

 

[tired as fuck]

My point is, if the mother shoved her son against the fridge, there's probably other thing she's done to him that caused that instability. She was probably being selective in that memoir to avoid social repercussions.

yes that is true

By the time certain details come out (e.g. the fridge incident, pointing to signs of a dysfunctional family), 17 years have passed. That's 17 years of lawmakers trying to get videogames like DOOM, Duke Nukem or GTA banned because "they cause school shootings hurr durr". 17 years of additional bullying done to kids that "look like they could do a school shooting". 17 years of bullshit red herrings that lead to nowhere but even more unnecessary suffering. 17 years of disgusting virtue signaling. A trail of destruction that very few are able to see...

The worst thing is they do not need to win their battles to win the war. The collective consciousness is shaped by propaganda, not actual facts. Videogames do not cause violent behavior, this is an established fact, but I am very much afraid the collective believes otherwise.

 

[Hoodpreet]

Cuckposting atp. Just eugenically weed out the traits that lead people to commit crime. Nazi Germany had a good policy on this

 

[tired as fuck]

To empathize with them(killers) it would be like for us to empathize with furries or bornies or other people you could say are taboo to speak of in any light other than negative. Like lolcows for example.

Mate I don't think you can put mass shooters, furries, bronies and lolcows on the same plane lmfao. They're all different in their nature.

Just like they don't see outcasts as people, we have our own share of "enemies" we don't consider as human nor care to understand/sympathize with

Speak for yourself

Why would you want to label yourself as someone caring for a person below your standing?

Why should I not want to? Because others are going to judge me? Who cares though. Wars between outcasts are retarded as fuck.

Do you care when you stomp a cockroach or a house centipede?

I don't stomp either

Do you ever ask why and they're in your house?

I never found either in my house but for insects in general I put them out the window or just let them be.

Why and what do they even do?

idk exist and shit. like all of us

No you don't.

You stomp them and take them out.

Speak for yourself x2

Filthy cockroaches that can only be understood as pests soon to be stomped once again. Pretty dumb I think, but hopefully it makes sense.

Besides the fact I don't do none of those things, I guess? I'd have to think about whether normies actually believe in moral values or if that is also just a game of pretend

 

[tired as fuck]

Just eugenically

ignoremaxx

 

[tired as fuck]

tales from the nazi larpers

 

[Hoodpreet]

Cuckposting atp. Just eugenically weed out the traits that lead people to commit crime. Nazi Germany had a good policy on this

The Gulf States also. Their crime rates are on par with or better than those of Scandinavian countries, despite being absolutely chock full of turd world curries and nigs.

Cut off an arm, cut off a leg, make an example out of someone. That’s how you get people to behave more than just throwing them in jail. That’s why Wallachia under Vlad the Impaler allegedly had 0 gypsy crime. Restorative justice is only viable if you have a population that’s at the baseline not very interested in crime (genotypically)

 

[NIGGA BANBAN]

The Gulf States also. Their crime rates are on par with or better than those of Scandinavian countries, despite being absolutely chock full of turd world curries and nigs.

Cut off an arm, cut off a leg, make an example out of someone. That’s how you get people to behave more than just throwing them in jail. That’s why Wallachia under Vlad the Impaler allegedly had 0 gypsy crime. Restorative justice is only viable if you have a population that’s at the baseline not very interested in crime (genotypically)

Sadly we're still animals and often a beat down or a punishment gets you better results than reason, but you could say it's bit on of an IQ thing since some people have lower IQ's on average.

 

[NIGGA BANBAN]

Mate I don't think you can put mass shooters, furries, bronies and lolcows on the same plane lmfao. They're all different in their nature.

They are but there's a huge overlap between them. Most of normies consider ER as a lolcow, but still I was trying to use them as an example. Obviously they are different, but they overlap a lot. I'll take the L on that one.

Speak for yourself

Again depends on which outcasts were talking about. I don't think you'd be singing a same tune about empathy if we had to talk about troons or fags.

Also

tired as fuck


Empathy does not exist, incels are not empathetic

Who are you to speak, when you don't believe in it yourself either? You're practically proving my point on people's performative empathy. This entire thread is about empathy towards people who were/are criminals and need to be assessed and looked through lenses of a bird's eye view without being emotional, meanwhile you don't even believe in the concept of empathy itself. This entire thread is labeled pointless then, as you don't even believe in what you preach. How do you even expect people or society to be more "empathetic", when the concept of empathy doesn't even exist in your own words? It's like trying to force a fish to fly then.

Why should I not want to? Because others are going to judge me? Who cares though. Wars between outcasts are retarded as fuck.

Depends on which "outcasts " we're talking about? Would you be eager to sympathize with troons, cucks, bluepillers or fags? All of them which are below our standing in Incel hierarchy. If so, why do we keep arguing with IT and whatnot, since it's clear most of them are also incels in denial.

I don't stomp either

That's metaphorical. What I meant is they don't care nor ask why are they like that. They're just repulsed by outcasts and want them gone as fast as possible.

I never found either in my house but for insects in general I put them out the window or just let them be.

idk exist and shit. like all of us

Speak for yourself x2

Again metaphorical. I don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[Hoodpreet]

Sadly we're still animals and often a beat down or a punishment gets you better results than reason, but you could say it's bit on of an IQ thing since some people have lower IQ's on average.

Temperament is its own highly heritable trait independent of IQ, and the heritability of it actually tracks more consistently across social classes than IQ’s does. Even if IQ is often held as the strongest predictor of economic success, I believe temperament is a bigger predictor of criminality for obvious reasons.

The leftist poster of this thread ignores the heritability of behavioral patterns and seems to go with the view that criminals are primarily made and not born. He’s also ignorant of racial differences, of course

 

[Hoodpreet]

Sadly we're still animals and often a beat down or a punishment gets you better results than reason, but you could say it's bit on of an IQ thing since some people have lower IQ's on average.

Temperament is its own highly heritable trait independent of IQ, and the heritability of it actually tracks more consistently across social classes than IQ’s does. Even if IQ is often held as the strongest predictor of economic success, I believe temperament is a bigger predictor of criminality for obvious reasons.

The leftist poster of this thread ignores the heritability of behavioral patterns and seems to go with the view that criminals are primarily made and not born. He’s also ignorant of racial differences, of course

Restorative justice is only viable once you’ve reached a population that’s relatively equalized in terms of genetic propensity for criminality. That’s why it worked in pre-refugee Scandinavia, or why elements of it (for juvenile offenders) have succeeded in Japan.

The idea that countries like America, Canada, the UK, etc. need to be softer on crime is absolute brainmelted buffoonery

 

[NIGGA BANBAN]

Temperament is its own highly heritable trait independent of IQ, and the heritability of it actually tracks more consistently across social classes than IQ’s does. Even if IQ is often held as the strongest predictor of economic success, I believe temperament is a bigger predictor of criminality for obvious reasons.

Interesting. How does it work? Does low temperament correlate with something else like mental disorders, high aggression(like high T, although I don't and can't tell if it actually causes it on its own alone because I'm stupid) or another thing?

The leftist poster of this thread ignores the heritability of behavioral patterns and seems to go with the view that criminals are primarily made and not born. He’s also ignorant of racial differences, of course

I have nothing against the guy, but his point comes across as shallow to me when in previous posts he mentioned how he doesn't even believe in concept of empathy. Would society be better off if we empathized with criminals? I don't know. But what do I find it stupid is all this preaching about empathy and whatnot like how he doesn't care about whether someone will make fun of him for feeling bad towards people we consider below our hierarchy, yet also thinks it doesn't exist and no incels have empathy. So it's all performative then?

It's so bipolar to me. Going around talking like "ooh why shouldn't I sympathize with XYZ people?!", while also talking how he doesn't feel empathy towards anyone, but also has to add on how he doesn't hurt bugs(because thanks God so empathetic), but also at the same time incels don't have empathy?

 

[Giracel]

There is definitely some truth here but it risks veering into soy leftist soft on crime logic. Something like a school shooter does deserve context as you gave the example of, but some delinquent who goes and murders a 7-11 clerk for a free drink? No context needed, instant life in prison, or execution.

 

[Hoodpreet]

Interesting. How does it work? Does low temperament correlate with something else like mental disorders, high aggression(like high T, although I don't and can't tell if it actually causes it on its own alone because I'm stupid) or another thing?

It’s not “low vs high temperament.” There are many different types of temperaments. And yeah they can be affected by mental illness and hormonal balances or imbalances. Think of it this way, temperament is all the aspects of your personality besides your consciously held beliefs.

I have nothing against the guy, but his point comes across as shallow to me when in previous posts he mentioned how he doesn't even believe in concept of empathy. Would society be better off if we empathized with criminals? I don't know. But what do I find it stupid is all this preaching about empathy and whatnot like how he doesn't care about whether someone will make fun of him for feeling bad towards people we consider below our hierarchy, yet also thinks it doesn't exist and no incels have empathy. So it's all performative then?

It's so bipolar to me. Going around talking like "ooh why shouldn't I sympathize with XYZ people?!", while also talking how he doesn't feel empathy towards anyone, but also has to add on how he doesn't hurt bugs(because thanks God so empathetic), but also at the same time incels don't have empathy?

The whole post is Reddit-coded and very egalitarian in ethos. I don’t disagree with the idea that the role of personal agency in determining someone’s life trajectory is vastly overstated by normies, but I lean more toward genetic determinism in regards to behavior rather than environmental determinism

 

[The Notorious SLAV]

Eh, depends on the crime I'd say. Immediate execution not being the default punishment for premeditated murder is already unimaginably empathetic towards first-degree murderers, and extremely cruel to the loved ones of the victims in my opinion.

What has always fascinated me about how school shootings are handled in public discourse is how no thought is put into the perpetrator. Sure, he sparged out and killed a bunch of teens, but why did he sperg out? Why did he reach a breaking point and decided to commit such an extreme act (which almost always ends in suicide)? These questions are never asked.

Eh, in this one, I have to agree with the commenters who've said that there's a large amount of empathy for the perpetrators. Mass shootings are by default defined by the perpetrators, and so are the conversations about them.

Free will does not exist. It is a lie, kept alive to protect the perceived moral superiority that the individual feels regarding himself, for determinism postulates that under the same circumstances, the supposedly morally superior normie would act the same way as the repugnant shooter.

True. But just because you understand that behaviour and would do the same in the same circumstances and with brain wired the same way, doesn't by itself mean you need to accept such behaviour.

If people started thinking more, they would ask the correct questions, regarding the shooter's infancy, teenage years, family life, social life, inner psyche. They would try to comprehend the circumstances and the motivations behind the shooter's actions, and, perhaps a utopian possibility, they'd move to ensure that such circumstances cannot possiby exist anymore.

I mean, with criminals it unfortunately tends to be that the further into their past you go, the more instances of them consistently being pieces of shit turn out. Antisocial behaviour is quite consistent over the life course, at least among the perpetrators of more severe crimes.

Most bullies aren’t Chads, but dysgenic subhumans themselves

There is a prevailing belief was that high school bullies were tall, good-looking, and athletic Chads who preyed on nerdy and socially awkward incels, when the reality couldn't be further from the truth, as my personal experiences and studies on bullying have shown. When I went to school, most...

incels.is

Temperament is its own highly heritable trait independent of IQ, and the heritability of it actually tracks more consistently across social classes than IQ’s does. Even if IQ is often held as the strongest predictor of economic success, I believe temperament is a bigger predictor of criminality for obvious reasons.

The leftist poster of this thread ignores the heritability of behavioral patterns and seems to go with the view that criminals are primarily made and not born. He’s also ignorant of racial differences, of course

It reminded me of this paper which found that, internationally, people overestimate the heritability of IQ and temperament, but underestimate the heritability of BMI and criminality, the latter especially so.

A 30-nation investigation of lay heritability beliefs - Laura J. Ferris, Matthew J. Hornsey, José J. Morosoli, Taciano L. Milfont, Fiona Kate Barlow, 2024

Lay beliefs about human trait heritability are consequential for cooperation and social cohesion, yet there has been no global characterisation of these beliefs...

journals.sagepub.com

I totally 100% disagree, I think it's the opposite we should empathize with perpetrators of crimes way less than society currently does. Almost Every other day there is story about some piece of garbage scumbag who murdered someone after being dealt a light sentence from left wing judge because the judge had a lot empathy for the situation the criminal found themselves in. You are an example of someone who has been psyop'd by society into believing that most criminals are the kinds of people who are stealing just to survive when they are actually just niggers who steal because they can. They stole my electric bike and the police did nothing about it because that's what they are told to do, These scum need to be properly punished instead of getting a light slap on the wrist.