WTF Article claims Positive Effects of Bullying Autistics

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, so there's Lanza, now let's talk about all the others, since that was merely one case, and coincidentally happens to be the one with the least amount of evidence of anything really-- Lanza was a ghost, not even investigators know much about him.

Let's say the shooter was constantly bullied, stood up for himself, and was repeatedly punished by the administration-- ala the Columbine shooters. That's institutional at that point, so what recourse does the theoretical bullied person have? They can either live with the treatment, or they can bite back. Which sounds more appealing?

The last time violence was talked about it was locked. If you want to defend school shooters then post a separate thread in PPR or something, this is off topic.

On a side note, I'm not advocating shooting up schools, nor do I believe Rudin is, but he can speak for himself. I'm merely pointing out the psychology of the shooter juxtaposed to the social behavior they have to deal with. It's not victim blaming, nor advocating for school shooters: it's looking at the causes without emotion muddying the waters.

Edit: yes, the topic got off, but not by much-- bullying and school shooting have a solid link, no one here has denied that.

Last edited by Aristophanes on 18 Oct 2015, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But the vast majority of people have more sense than to "bite back" through mass murder

I cannot speak for Aristophanes, but I am in no way defending school shooters.

I am saying that if bullying were no longer a factor, perhaps school shootings wouldn't occur as frequently as they do.

Again, people react differently to different stimuli, and we can never really know how another person is affected since we aren't that person. My point is that if you eliminate bullying you eliminate the need to "bite back" in the first place. I mean if you don't hit the dog chances are the dog's not going to bite you. It's just common sense, but people toss in emotion and lose any sense of practical and logical solutions.

Then it would make them insane if they truly think that. A guy is mad at the whole world and mad at everyone who has misunderstood him so he feels it's self defense to walk into a school and shoot a bunch of random people he doesn't even know or who have never harmed him in any way. That is faulty logic there they have.

Calling shooting up a school self defence looks like defending to me.

Okay. I believe you seem to be talking about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I'm talking about shootings in which one (or more) student(s) shot other students in their school because of bullying, such as Columbine.

Save for the innocent people that didn't do anything that were killed nonetheless. I can see how the shooter's might consider it self-defense.

Okay. I believe you seem to be talking about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I'm talking about shootings in which one (or more) student(s) shot other students in their school because of bullying, such as Columbine.

Save for the innocent people that didn't do anything that were killed nonetheless. I can see how the shooter's might consider it self-defense.

Yeah.

The shooter is saying, "Look at me. I matter. The bullying won't be ignored any longer".

When animals feel cornered, their last option of self-defense is to strike out.

I don't think of a shooting like those described could ever be classified as self-defense even from a psychological POV. In many cases of shootings the actual people being shot aren't even the people who pick(ed) on the shooter, much less are in any way actively a threat at the time of the shooting, or apparently are specific people the shooter thinks may harm him in the future (so, some sort of "proactive" self-defense from the POV of the shooter or something like that - "Nobody will stop this person from hurting me again, so I'm going to protect myself from this person hurting me again").

If it could be classified in any way I'd say it's revenge rather than self-defense. It's misdirected revenge, as it's revenge against former abusers being perpetrated on innocent people and apparently sometimes years after the past abuse, but it's revenge (against society in general for having harmed the shooter in the past). Not self-defense. JMO.

Now...if someone who had been severely bullied and was continuing to be bullied opened fire on just the people who were bullying him, then I could see it as self-defense from the POV of the shooter (though probably not legally, I'm just saying as far as mental/emotional processes go). In that case the bullied is anticipating more torture and is finding the abusers, specifically, and shooting.

I still don't see that perspective so I guess that is what we would define as a mental illness or as insanity. If they only killed their abusers, then I would understand how they would see it as self defense. I have always had violent thoughts but it was only aimed at people who hurt me, not at a random person who has never done me any harm. But I never actually acted on it.

Yes, and that would result in a mere homicide, but again, there's an institutional component to these cases. In virtually every one of them, aside from Sandy Hook, there were people in places of power siding with the bullies against the bullied. Now, a bullied person that has a proclivity towards violence will see the institution itself as the problem, including everyone who actively supported the bullies, or supported them through silence-- that's why innocent people become a target, the mass shooter doesn't see them as such.

It's easier to swallow if we call them insane or crazy, but it's not accurate since they're actually using logical evolutionary instincts-- cornered animals always fight back, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Again, I'm not supporting mass shooters, there's nothing I'd like more than for it to stop, but demonizing the shooter without trying to understanding why they snap is counter productive.

^ But are insane people incapable of logic?

That's something I've never been able to fully understand about deciding whether or not a murderer was/is "insane." The assumptions seem to be along the lines of: premeditation means it can't be insanity...I can see that that wouldn't be classified as TEMPORARY insanity (I guess?) but is it actually true that a person who's mentally ill/insane can't premeditate? (I really don't know, which is why I'm asking.)

And...the example of using logic above. Is it true that it's impossible for an insane person to ever employ logic?

Again, not doing an "aha!" here, I'm actually asking as I don't know.

I now understand why some seemingly innocent people are killed in the shootings. However, I will never understand why the Columbine shooters killed a special needs student with speech problems, I'll never have the remotest inkling as to what they were thinking. That is just cruel.