Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Aruntraveller on August 14, 2021, 08:16:47 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58209726
A very sad and tragic event.
Obviously lots of questions for the police to answer with regard to letting Davison have his guns and licence back after they had been confiscated in December last year.
More widely, the whole question of the insidious nature of parts of the internet where groups (groups may be the wrong word - loose associations?) like "incel" can flourish and perpetuate their particular brand of misogyny and hatred needs to be addressed.
-
A terrible crime. >:( Goodness know why that mentally ill man was permitted to have his gun licence back, or even have one in the first place. :o I had never heard of 'incel' before now, they are sick in the head perverts who should have their groups made illegal.
-
Involuntary celibate.
In other words, it seems, men whose social and personal skills are so poor that they make any potential female (or possibly, for that matter) any potential male friend run for cover.
His mother was clearly to blame - so she had to go (it would seem) but a three year old little girl, who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I find this a mixture of the immensely sad and the bizarre, and am baffled at the decision to allow this wretch - particularly since he was living in an urban area - to possess a shotgun.
-
I have no idea why anyone living in an urban area should be permitted to have a shotgun licence.
-
Good article by Joan Smith on this covering the terrorism aspect
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/15/extreme-misogyny-ideaology-plymouth-killer-terrorist
-
Difficult to read this and not see it as an ideology
https://archive.is/jeeTC
-
Am I just overthinking this ... or perhaps adding 2 and 2 and getting some number other than 4?
But the targets of the so-called "incels" - for denying them access to sexual activity are women.
In this section of the forum is a thread about "trans rights" a subject through which appears to run the argument that the mere possession of anatomical features and physiological processes that are the product of an XX genotype does not give their possessors the right to call themselves women.
Is there some sort of low-scale undeclared war on womanhood?
-
I have no idea why anyone living in an urban area should be permitted to have a shotgun licence.
Because it's possible to travel from urban areas to non urban areas where legitimate use of shotguns is possible.
-
Good article by Joan Smith on this covering the terrorism aspect
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/15/extreme-misogyny-ideaology-plymouth-killer-terrorist
No, it's a stupid article.
Why the need to label this as terrorism? What use is there in labelling it as terrorism? Does it make the writer feel better? Is it going to make it easier to prevent this from happening again?
-
No, it's a stupid article.
Why the need to label this as terrorism? What use is there in labelling it as terrorism? Does it make the writer feel better? Is it going to make it easier to prevent this from happening again?
Under the 'terrorism' label, intelligence agencies and the police have a wider range of powers to investigate and detain than under 'conventional' crime legislation. I don't know if that's the author's thinking, or if they are wanting to 'upgrade' it to terrorism to bring more attention to the fact that this sort of thinking is becoming more formalised with organised groups forming; if you have a group of people starting to form, some of whom are liable to violence... terrorism legislation is the right category for it.
O.
-
The ownership of firearms should be tightened up so only people with a legitimate reason for using one, like farmers culling vermin and other animals should be permitted to use them. In my opinion guns should not be used for any sporting purposes like target shooting, clay pigeon and gamebird shooting.
-
Under the 'terrorism' label, intelligence agencies and the police have a wider range of powers to investigate and detain than under 'conventional' crime legislation. I don't know if that's the author's thinking, or if they are wanting to 'upgrade' it to terrorism to bring more attention to the fact that this sort of thinking is becoming more formalised with organised groups forming; if you have a group of people starting to form, some of whom are liable to violence... terrorism legislation is the right category for it.
O.
I totally disagree. These are sad people with a hatred of women . They don't have political objectives. They are just going out murdering (or one person has just gone out and murdered) people they hate.
-
The ownership of firearms should be tightened up so only people with a legitimate reason for using one, like farmers culling vermin and other animals should be permitted to use them. In my opinion guns should not be used for any sporting purposes like target shooting, clay pigeon and gamebird shooting.
The problem that I would have with this (apart from questioning whether target shooting and clay pigeon shooting should be banned) is that you are only treating the symptoms. Furthermore, there is already a process in place to stop people like Davison having shotguns. The process failed in this instance, but it's not clear too me that the process is wrong so much as the people responsible for executing it failed in this instance.
-
I totally disagree. These are sad people with a hatred of women . They don't have political objectives. They are just going out murdering (or one person has just gone out and murdered) people they hate.
Except they are not just doing that. They are radicalising men to think thst tyey shouod be given sex by women or else they will br justified in violence. It's not the most sophisticated ideology but then neither is the KKK. That the Plymouth shooter is being talked of as a saint in these channels seems ideological to me. There's even a faorly mild version of this which says the violence is wrong but women are to blame tor it.
-
Am I just overthinking this ... or perhaps adding 2 and 2 and getting some number other than 4?
But the targets of the so-called "incels" - for denying them access to sexual activity are women.
In this section of the forum is a thread about "trans rights" a subject through which appears to run the argument that the mere possession of anatomical features and physiological processes that are the product of an XX genotype does not give their possessors the right to call themselves women.
Is there some sort of low-scale undeclared war on womanhood?
There is a small overlap with the concept of transmaxxing/trannymaxxing - https://incels.wiki/w/Trannymaxxing.
There is also on both a strand that is highly influenced by porn usage.
Add to these 2, the concern over women in Afghanistan, which I have seen described as 'the incels taking over a country', and there are many women who see this as a fairly high scale ear against them. They would though say that while things seem worse than for some time, it's never been a peace. I see more and more women saying that they had never realised until recently quite how correct the Germain Greer quote is - 'Women have very little idea how much men hate them'
-
There is a small overlap with the concept of transmaxxing/trannymaxxing - https://incels.wiki/w/Trannymaxxing.
There is also on both a strand that is highly influenced by porn usage.
Add to these 2, the concern over women in Afghanistan, which I have seen described as 'the incels taking over a country', and there are many women who see this as a fairly high scale ear against them. They would though say that while things seem worse than for some time, it's never been a peace. I see more and more women saying that they had never realised until recently quite how correct the Germain Greer quote is - 'Women have very little idea how much men hate them'
'Women have very little idea how much men hate them'....that is a blatant generalization....that is obviously wrong.
Most men in this world (even in past generations) have been very protective of their women. They have usually worked their hands off trying to protect and feed their women and children.
-
'Women have very little idea how much men hate them'....that is a blatant generalization....that is obviously wrong.
Most men in this world (even in past generations) have been very protective of their women. They have usually worked their hands off trying to protect and feed their women and children.
It's not saying that every man is bad but that men as a sex class carry out the vast majority of violence. That they have as a sex class oppressed women. That women's rights have had to be fought for.
And I can't help but note the implication that women and children are possessions in your post 'their women an children'
-
It's not saying that every man is bad but that men as a sex class carry out the vast majority of violence. That they have as a sex class oppressed women. That women's rights have had to be fought for.
And I can't help but note the implication that women and children are possessions in your post 'their women an children'
That irritated me too. ::)
-
It's not saying that every man is bad but that men as a sex class carry out the vast majority of violence. That they have as a sex class oppressed women. That women's rights have had to be fought for.
And I can't help but note the implication that women and children are possessions in your post 'their women an children'
'their' women does not mean their possession or anything of that sort. By 'their' is meant a relationship, a bond. How do you people manage to read such negative implications?
-
'their' women does not mean their possession or anything of that sort. By 'their' is meant a relationship, a bond. How do you people manage to read such negative implications?
'Their' generally does indicate possession - see link
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
Given that through much of history women have been seen as chattels, your post only shows your ignorance of the issues. And maybe if you are worried about generalizations, you might want to avoid facile ones like 'you people'.
Given the problems of women and children being murdered because of male rage, and the disaster for women in Afghanistan, I find your upset here to be a sad joke.
-
'Their' generally does indicate possession - see link
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
Given that through much of history women have been seen as chattels, your post only shows your ignorance of the issues. And maybe if you are worried about generalizations, you might want to avoid facile ones like 'you people'.
Given the problems of women and children being murdered because of male rage, and the disaster for women in Afghanistan, I find your upset here to be a sad joke.
The fact that most men across the world are outraged by what is happening in Afghanistan...shows clearly that most men are not like that.
-
The fact that most men across the world are outraged by what is happening in Afghanistan...shows clearly that most men are not like that.
In feminist circles, there is an acronym NAMALT - it stand for Not All Men Are Like That. It's what is trotted out so often more outraged at the fear and anger of women as a sex class because of the actions of men. Women don't know if they are walking down a street if the man behind them is a NAMALT, so they will clasp their keys between their fingers ready to protect themselves. Women don't know that the man on the bus who tells them to smile because they look better is a NAMALT so they will shuffle away from him. Women don't know that man who sits down next to them on a train while there are lots of empty seats is a NAMALT so- they might feel they have to move. This happens everyday, all day, to millions of women. I know of no women who is a friend who has not been sexually harassed.
On the day the Taliban took over Afghanistan, Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's ex finance minister, tweeted '“On the day liberal-neoconservative imperialism was defeated once and for all, DiEM25’s thoughts are with the women of Afghanistan. Our solidarity probably means little to them, but it’s what we have to offer – for now . Hold on' So you may actually be hanged for being a women but it's all for the good.
5 people were murdered, including a 3 year old girl, by a man who thought he somehow deserved sex, and yet what has you mewling away is a quote from a feminist.
-
In feminist circles, there is an acronym NAMALT - it stand for Not All Men Are Like That. It's what is trotted out so often more outraged at the fear and anger of women as a sex class because of the actions of men. Women don't know if they are walking down a street if the man behind them is a NAMALT, so they will clasp their keys between their fingers ready to protect themselves. Women don't know that the man on the bus who tells them to smile because they look better is a NAMALT so they will shuffle away from him. Women don't know that man who sits down next to them on a train while there are lots of empty seats is a NAMALT so- they might feel they have to move. This happens everyday, all day, to millions of women. I know of no women who is a friend who has not been sexually harassed.
On the day the Taliban took over Afghanistan, Yanis Varoufakis, Greece's ex finance minister, tweeted '“On the day liberal-neoconservative imperialism was defeated once and for all, DiEM25’s thoughts are with the women of Afghanistan. Our solidarity probably means little to them, but it’s what we have to offer – for now . Hold on' So you may actually be hanged for being a women but it's all for the good.
5 people were murdered, including a 3 year old girl, by a man who thought he somehow deserved sex, and yet what has you mewling away is a quote from a feminist.
Why are you going on and on about what is happening in Afghanistan as an example of what men in general are?! In your efforts to support the cause of women be sure you don't become a misandrist (?) or something. ::)
The Afghan problem is about a fundamentalist group which is a part of the population in a certain country. Don't use that to beat all men across the world!
-
Why are you going on and on about what is happening in Afghanistan as an example of what men in general are?! In your efforts to support the cause of women be sure you don't become a misandrist (?) or something. ::)
The Afghan problem is about a fundamentalist group which is a part of the population in a certain country. Don't use that to beat all men across the world!
It's a completely male dominated group that will implemenr measures to subjugate women but don't you worry about that because you got a bit of butthurt from a nasty woman's quote. I note you've ignored what most of my post said.
-
Except they are not just doing that. They are radicalising men to think thst tyey shouod be given sex by women or else they will br justified in violence. It's not the most sophisticated ideology but then neither is the KKK. That the Plymouth shooter is being talked of as a saint in these channels seems ideological to me. There's even a faorly mild version of this which says the violence is wrong but women are to blame tor it.
Still not terrorism.
If you label everything where people in a group get together to do violence as terrorism, the word loses all meaning. It's not as if the crime magically becomes easier to cope with by labelling it as terrorism. You aren't going to solve the problem by calling it something it is not.
-
Still not terrorism.
If you label everything where people in a group get together to do violence as terrorism, the word loses all meaning. It's not as if the crime magically becomes easier to cope with by labelling it as terrorism. You aren't going to solve the problem by calling it something it is not.
Not sure I see what your argument is here. If it is violence to intimidate and frighten, and it is an ideology,and I'm arguing that it is, then that is the definition here. You didn't present any argument against what I said.
-
It's not saying that every man is bad but that men as a sex class carry out the vast majority of violence. That they have as a sex class oppressed women. That women's rights have had to be fought for.
And I can't help but note the implication that women and children are possessions in your post 'their women an children'
Words such as "my" and "their" do not necessarily indicate possession, merely a relationship with. How else could it be expressed than "their women and children"?