RE: Why it's Not the Boys in the Above Picture Who Grow Up to be School Shooters
Or, get this, it's not going to be either of them because the chances of a person actually becoming a school shooter slim to none. Also lmfao @ children holding weapons of any kind being associated with "masculinity". Sure, they miiiiiight not be school shooters, but they'll probably be cops, or military, or some other toxic and oppressive position of power where people can get away with murder or have a justification to treat others like garbage. Yeah, I can do stereotypes, too :)
The real fact of the matter is the root of the problem, if anything, is isolation and treating others like they're "different" and thus bad. I can guarantee that there is not a single shred of percentage difference in effeminate vs masculine men being school shooters, but instead loners vs people that are accepted.
You're taking the pictures too literally. It's not the guns or the makeup, per se. But yes, guns are a masculine interest. Boys, on average, are more interested in stuff like machinery and whatnot. That's why men are more likely to become engineers, for example.
But your second point is correct, I think. It's isolation and the feeling of being alone, which then erupts in acts of violence.
However, which group do you think is more accepted? You yourself have made posts recently about being isolated and banned from places for being trans.
You could say the top is more likely to live a normal life, but the point is that everyone should have that same capability without having to conform to strict standards of society that they don't like, because if they do it just leads to more internal unhappiness that can manifest in the same way or in different ways that are far from the desired outcome.
I think our disconnect lies in the fact that you're talking from a standpoint of an idealized society, while I have a more gritty view.
Is it right or commendable that those people get treated poorly and bullied? No. While I find your position admirable, I also find it equally naive.
Unfortunately.
Well, let's look at history. Remember when video games were for "nerds" and "geeks" and people got the living shit beat out of them because they played pac-man after school?
Now, everyone talks about call of duty and xbox and it's a normalized thing in society. Everyone's a gamer now in some way, angry birds or farmville, etc. Society has a proven track record of evolving toward the correct position, it's just a matter of getting people to understand the worldviews that people initially perceive as "different".
An idealized society would be a lot different than just suggesting that queer kids shouldn't get bullied and tortured, but that's another topic for another time.
No, I don't remember this - and I grew up during this era. I never saw anyone get the "living shit beat out of them" because they played video games. There was the usual picking on nerds and bullying of kids that was and is pretty common among children, but never anything remotely close to beating the shit out of people because they played Pac-Man after school.
In fact, when I was a kid, there was this great method for dealing with bullies. The bullied would eventually fight back. Then, an amazing thing happened: the bullying stopped.
We didn't go to school counselors and demand safe spaces. We didn't become hashtag warriors (there was no Twitter or feel-good social media sites where we could live in our fake bubble worlds and echo-chambers). We didn't try to reason with violent kids.
There was an unwritten (and completely unnecessary) rule: If someone started a fight with you, you fought back. You defended yourself. If you saw someone else being attacked, you stood up for them. And, in fact, I saw this happen and participated in such defenses many times growing up. You know what the shocking part is?
It worked. Pretty much every single time.
Maybe we've had different experiences growing up, but I'm fairly certain that these blanket statements about gamers being viciously beaten for being a gamer wasn't an actual thing and wasn't an actual widespread thing. Yes, some kids were picked on...probably most kids at one point or another in their youth. No, I don't believe that people were maliciously beaten for trivial things like being a gamer. They were likely picked on because they tended to be easy targets. They were weak and easy to bully. This is not a strange phenomenon.
The truly strange part is that people watch others getting picked on, marginalized, or even beaten...and do nothing. They may even be the recipient of the antagonism and violence...and do nothing. They are taught that "violence is not the answer," even when it is the initiation of violence against them that brings on the question, "What should I do?"
The answer ought to be obvious. But if you're not willing to even put in minimal effort to stand up for yourself - to protect your own self - can you really expect others to help you? Should you expect that the aggressors will simply stop taking advantage of you? I don't think those are reasonable expectations at all, based on the observable world.
You can substitute gamers for black people if it makes you feel better. I was just using an example that's presumably more relatable.
Not everyone has the capabilities of "fighting back", and in a civilized society that isn't how things operate. Violence tends to not be the answer in most situations, but it definitely can be in some. I'm not against it entirely.
What's wrong with a safe space? What's the problem with wanting to feel like you can go to school and not have to fear for your life because an institution isn't doing what it should be doing and protecting you while you learn? We don't live in an anarchist society, if you want to do that, make a video game and play that. We live in a civilization of rational people capable of thinking for themselves.
That's too funny, please continue.