Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious IT fails to grasp that admission of cause isn't necessarily a belief in justification

  • Thread starter Deleted member 8353
  • Start date
Deleted member 8353

Deleted member 8353

Former Hikikomori, Aimless Pleasure Seeker
-
Joined
May 29, 2018
Posts
9,332


Here's what I'd like to ask them. Do you believe that people truly choose their responses to adversity? Are people in general who lash out against their abusers cowards, and if not, then how is severe bullying different from other types of abuse? If men who carry out mass shootings had simply killed themselves alone, would they still be cowards?

Of course if the condition present in the final question were true, then you would've never even heard of these men to begin with, because nobody cares until the pain is projected outward. However that's besides the point, what I'm getting at is that ideas like "excuse" and "justification" only exist within minds of people as they desperately try to make agents outside of themselves conform to their own cognitive biases and faith based beliefs. Whether or not you, me, or anybody else validates the actions of mass killers is completely divorced from anything which makes an effectual difference in preventing the actions of those whom society vilifies.

With a lot of these attacks, it's foolish to believe the primary motive is a desire to kill, as the majority of the killers don't live long enough obtain whatever could possibly be gained from their actions. Most of the time, carrying out a mass shooting seems to be a really awful suicide method, getting revenge in the process of dying (while usually failing to even hurt the true object of their anger as they kill random people) but not much beyond that. When it comes to suicide attacks, it's sad how people think the primary question should asking how people acquired the means. Imagine hearing about a suicide and questioning only how an individual obtained the materials used in their suicide, it makes no fucking sense. You don't prevent suicide or violence by removing a single means by which to carry these actions out, they would simply be expressed in a different way until the actual causes were addressed. But of course, people at large have no interest in addressing the causes. So instead of attempting to prevent the circumstances which lead people to carry out suicidal attacks, society just tries to limit the damage, and importantly, most of the killers likely knew all of this.
 
What they're saying is, it doesn't put enough blame on the shooter.
 
What they're saying is, it doesn't put enough blame on the shooter.
Blame is a construct, and pretty much an illusion tbh. It presupposes that people have control over their responses to anything, that people are moral agents, when I just don't believe that this is true. This is also why these attacks are misguided and pointless, but I guess that's another topic which I've already addressed before.
 
The thing is that everything you just said, goes against everything the average normie believes in. As you already pointed out, normies like to see themselves as moral agents, who seem to posses some form of inherent goodness, which they simply obtained by the virtue of being themselves. They most likely see themselves as the main character in some cosmic movie or tv show, and since the main character is usually the good guy, they must be good aswell. By removing concepts like guilt, justice, or fairness, from the equation you basically invalidate the whole premisse on which their existence is based on. They'd be forced to accept that they aren't actually any better than those shooters, but rather just luckier, as in they simply got dealt a better hand of cards.
 
The thing is that everything you just said, goes against everything the average normie believes in. As you already pointed out, normies like to see themselves as moral agents, who seem to posses some form of inherent goodness, which they simply obtained by the virtue of being themselves. They most likely see themselves as the main character in some cosmic movie or tv show, and since the main character is usually the good guy, they must be good aswell. By removing concepts like guilt, justice, or fairness, from the equation you basically invalidate the whole premisse on which their existence is based on. They'd be forced to accept that they aren't actually any better than those shooters, but rather just luckier, as in they simply got dealt a better hand of cards.
High IQ.

It's true that most people just don't seem to get it. They fail to realize that they project themselves and their own exact circumstances onto people who don't share them, and then proceed to judge when others don't respond in the same manner as them. The process of accepting that you aren't any better than the people who've wronged you isn't pleasant, so most will either fail or outright refuse to engage in any of this thinking.
 
Last edited:
The process of accepting that you aren't any better than the people who've wronged you isn't pleasant, so most will either fail or outright refuse to engage in any of this thinking.
Yep, ignoring reality when it comes to things like mass shootings. Seems to be a defence mechanism for normies.
 

Similar threads

AsiaCel
Replies
6
Views
320
AsiaCel
AsiaCel
cunnylover69
Replies
90
Views
2K
Freixel
Freixel
Sinbad Gehenna
Replies
22
Views
469
nothingnowhere
N
sultryloser
Replies
1
Views
148
wereq
wereq

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top