Homicide stats in Canadian Cities

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ I think what people are really reacting to are the alt right agitators who immediately jump in to frame incidents like this as the latest installment of Islam vs the West to suit their own political purposes. And as it turns out, Islamists had nothing to do with this as far as we know.

I know. That's part of the reason why these reactions (and my own reactions to them) make me uneasy.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

Beyond that it's a broader cultural matter of getting people to look at things differently. As Acajack pointed out, we live in a bit of a winner take all culture and some people end up at the losing end of that equation. Not treating people like that as outcasts would be a good start. My impression is that even though incels focus on their lack of a significant other, I think a lot of them simply need a friend, period.

I can agree with this.

A lot of the social structures that have turned boys into men in the past have atrophied over the past few decades. I'm not sure where the fault lies, but it has left a generation of men unable to cope with the real world.

I have some speculation regarding the causes:
- parents relying on the education system to do all of life's teaching
- video games/internet replacing the 'real world' life experience
- more focus on academic subjects in school to the exclusion of hands-on trades like shop class
- an increased focus on girls/women in society and education - while good unto itself - has left boys/men behind
- a stigmatization of male friendship (the idiotic term 'bromance' to replace 'friendship')

I'm not definitively saying that these are the causes, but I believe they play a role in the broader narrative. Some of the social structures that used to turn boys into men were clearly sexist and had to go, but there's a vacuum that now lies there.

I guess a lot of boys/men are left to figure it out on their own. Most do, but there is a specific subset that is failing.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Over the past few days I've been wondering why I felt a bit uneasy at the point-blank virulent of some to the early conclusions some people drew that this was an ISIS-inspired attack.

I am referring to all the allegations of Islamophobia and the statements most of you have seen like "this comment has no place in MY Canada or MY Toronto", or simply "if you think like that GTFO of Toronto, Canada, etc."

Obviously it's a thin line but given the history (I believe all of the van or truck attacks in recent years except maybe one or two have been ISIS-inspired) can we really blame people if their minds go there when something like this happens?

Also, no one sensible wants to condone Islamophobia, but is it still OK to be ISIS-phobic?

No, we cannot blame people for where there minds go. It's when their mouths immediately follow in the absence of concrete information that blame can be justified.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No, we cannot blame people for where there minds go. It's when their mouths immediately follow in the absence of concrete information that blame can be justified.

Still wondering why "ISIS-phobic" seems to equal "Islamophobic" in the eyes of so many people.

So someone rams a crowd of people with a rented van, and you say...

"I betcha it's those ISIS assholes again!"

And someone responds with "Don't be so Islamophobic you racist!".

In other cases we don't seem to so quickly conflate extremist groups with the wider demographic that (mostly) spawned them, nor do people who defend them walk the tightrope so carefully with their denounciations.

I look like a white guy of European origin. but I don't feel personally targeted when people call out white supremacists, primarily because I ain't one of them.

In the Canadian context I am also a francophone nationalist to some degree but I don't feel targeted when people denounce the FLQ or other extreme elements like La Meute. Again, because I am not part of those movements at all.

I realize that some people unfairly associate ISIS with all Muslims, but as much as this is wrong, other people should also be careful in how they react to stuff that's specifically anti-ISIS as opposed to anti-Muslim.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-ISIS, about which nothing good at all can be said.

[suburbanite]

No one has a problem specifically calling out ISIS. it's the 'religion of peace" comments like the one above that immediately try and break down the barrier between extremists and moderates so they can all be grouped together as incompatible with Western society.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I realize that some people unfairly associate ISIS with all Muslims, but as much as this is wrong, other people should also be careful in how they react to stuff that's specifically anti-ISIS as opposed to anti-Muslim.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-ISIS, about which nothing good at all can be said.

Obviously agree with the second point and I would hope everyone else can as well.

The problem is, most people who open their mouths in a vocal way tend to be of the type you describe in the first paragraph I quoted. I did not hear a single person say "I betcha it's ISIS!", but I did hear a lot of, "hmmm looks like the religion of peace is at it again", or "well this is what Toronto gets for being so 'diverse'" online.

In person most people I know were hoping that it wasn't a terrorist attack, and especially that it wasn't an organized one. Personally I think that's a positive thought process - acknowledging the possibility is one thing, but immediately jumping there, if anything, validates the effectiveness of the strategy of such groups. As an aside I think that line of thought is particularly British-anglo.

[kool maudit]

So far as I can tell the culture war scene will likely drop the Toronto incident down the memory-hole because, you know, it wasn't Ahmed Hussein but it wasn't Bill MacDonald either. So everyone is struggling a bit.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by theman23

I don't agree. To respond directly to your point, men can and do have affectionate relationships with non sexual partners, and this is probably why most incels (with the small i) are reasonably well adjusted, albeit sexually frustrated. That being said, there are a subset of men who buy into the machismo alpha male, pick yourself up by your bootstraps and fuck anything with a hole mindset that do struggle.

I've occasionally stumbled on message boards frequented by "Incels" (capital I), and in my line of work I often come across people who fit the profile as well. These guys tend to have an inflated sense of self worth, limited ability to introspect, and have a difficult time empathising with others. In fact, they tend to be quite judgemental. They lack a theory of mind and because of this often get diagnosed on the spectrum. My personal opinion is that most of these people are actually just narcissists. When they buy into the alpha/beta male paradigm peddled by their opinion leaders, only to realise what abject failures they are by their own standards, they engage in the classical narcissistic defence mechanism of projection. In this case, that unfortunately involved murdering 10 innocent people.

I'll take your word for it I guess, although I wonder how physically affectionate such relationships could be. Hugging? Kissing? Cuddling? Sex between males is still fairly taboo in a lot of circles. My impression is that most (generally) straight men, if they did something sexual with another male, would not tell their buddies, and that a topic like that doesn't appear on incel forums.

To be clear I get the feeling this incel culture is an offshoot of the crappy machismo culture I am saying is a problem. But these guys did not invent it, and they are not the only ones perpetuating it.

I agree that on the whole they also seem to have a bunch of psychological problems that contribute to their woes. This is kind of obvious. There are a lot of people who never have sex with anyone and do OK, and there are a lot of incels who rant on the internet but don't kill anyone.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Still wondering why "ISIS-phobic" seems to equal "Islamophobic" in the eyes of so many people.

Many of the same people who say that it is terrible to assume that a terrorist-style attack was committed by an ISIS follower will also say that we have to immediately believe women who come forward with allegations of sexual harassment. An even more extreme view is that the collateral damage of incorrectly punishing innocent accused is okay because it is small compared to the suffering of the harassed.

The situations are not quite the same but it is clear that the standards of evidence that people demand don't always depend solely on abstract universal principles of justice!

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As the parent of kids now in high school who've been consistently in the upper 90s since the beginning of elementary I can confirm to you that not everyone gets a trophy.

In fact, more often than not it's the underachievers that get the trophies for actually doing a bit of work, or simply being less bothersome to the others.

Kids of mine have finished the *entire year* with a final mark of 100% and seen the academic excellence award go to "Stevie" (name changed to protect the innocent, although...) for stopping throwing his personal stuff and other items like chairs at other kids halfway through the year... this was an "improvement" that needed to be rewarded.

It's a bit better in high school I must admit. Or at least where we go but elementary is just insane right now in its race to the bottom (nivellement par le bas).

I guess the rationale is that self-motivated kids like mine don't need a pat on the back as much as Stevie does - and it's true to a point. It doesn't seem to bother them much at all, whereas it used to enrage my wife and I quite a bit. (We kept this mostly to ourselves.)

And of course I haven't mentioned all the resources devoted to bringing the Stevies of the world up to speed (if only basically) whereas there is comparatively little if anything devoted to providing an extra push to high achievers who could go that much further.

Again, high school is a bit better but it really depends on the program and the school, and often parents have to seek these things out themselves. And pay extra too more often than not.

My sister teaches Grade 2 in a low income neighborhood with a class of 22 childen many of whom are barely even capable of reading and writing despite being 8 years old. Many of her students have parents who are addicted to alcohol or drugs and/or are abusive/neglectful.

The trophy culture is often criticized but its an amazing boost to kids like hers who have shitty lives and need every boost they can get to keep them from getting into drugs and gangs as they grow up.

Mentally healthy kids from upper middle class families who do well don't need trophies because they have great hands dealt to them and will almost certainly be successful adults regardless. I was very much like your kids growing up (I'm 25 now, not that much older than your kids I think?).. Getting very high grades and often getting passed up for recognition of them. I went to university, did well there, and am now successfully employed in a good job with benefits and a good salary. I honestly can't even remember which awards I got at high school graduation because it doesn't matter to me at all. I did well regardless, thats my trophy.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The trophy culture is often criticized but its an amazing boost to kids like hers who have shitty lives and need every boost they can get to keep them from growing up to be like their parents.

Very good point.

Those poor kids, I can't imagine...

[suburbanite]

If anybody wants some insight into how people like this get "radicalized" look no further than the red pill group on reddit. It's basically a community of scorned men who now believe that women are creatures of pure hormonal instinct ready to be manipulated by a strong alpha male. This is one of the most popular posts ever made on that group, which says all you need to know. I wouldn't read the whole thing if you wan't to maintain your sanity. Pretty easy to get the gist of it after the first 2 pgaes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/...d_37_rules_of/

Warning: shows an almost unbelievable lack of knowledge about the human psyche, not to mention physiology...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Many of the same people who say that it is terrible to assume that a terrorist-style attack was committed by an ISIS follower will also say that we have to immediately believe women who come forward with allegations of sexual harassment. An even more extreme view is that the collateral damage of incorrectly punishing innocent accused is okay because it is small compared to the suffering of the harassed.

The situations are not quite the same but it is clear that the standards of evidence that people demand don't always depend solely on abstract universal principles of justice!

To use another example, there were bombings in the UK during the 80s and 90s that were *not* the work of the IRA... there were actually quite a number of them. But the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the UK during that time were the work of the IRA.

I admit to having no firm picture of whether or not this led the average Briton to conflate the average Irish person with the IRA, and if this led to a high level of mistrust and Irish-o-phobia in any significant way.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by esquire

As Acajack pointed out, we live in a bit of a winner take all culture...

Just as an aside, it didn't really feel like that in the 1980s and 90s so much. To me, anyway. It seemed like you could mostly do your own thing without the (perceived) success of others being thrown in your face all the time. These days, with social media, it's more ever-present.

Then again, I've always been a rather well-adjusted person, and I was raised to view status and wealth as empty, meaningless fripperies by wholesome Anabaptist parents. And that grounding still informs a lot of my world view. The desire for extreme wealth and power really is unfathomable to me. I only understand it in a detached, intellectual way.

Mennonites are quasi-Buddhists, I think.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Just as an aside, it didn't really feel like that in the 1980s and 90s so much. To me, anyway. It seemed like you could mostly do your own thing without the (perceived) success of others being thrown in your face all the time. These days, with social media, it's more ever-present.

Then again, I've always been a rather well-adjusted person, and I was raised to view status and wealth as empty, meaningless fripperies by wholesome Anabaptist parents. And that grounding still informs a lot of my world view. The desire for extreme wealth and power really is unfathomable to me. I only understand it in a detached, intellectual way.

Mennonites are quasi-Buddhists, I think.

And yet, the crushing consensus if you asked the average person is that we're a much more respectful society today.

As I keep harping on here: I just think we've shifted what we think is acceptable, cool and attractive and what isn't.

When I was younger (the same time you were) I am pretty sure the vast majority of non-Sikh women would not have found someone like Jagmeet Singh attractive. Much less hot. Why? Because of the beard and the extremely long hair that's hidden under that turban. But these days he's pretty universally considered "hot". Which is suppose is a good thing. Or maybe it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing.

On the other hand when I was younger a hairy chest on a man was either considered attractive or at the very least neutral. Certainly not "gross" by anything but a tiny minority of women.

Today a hairy chest is not considered particularly attractive.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My sister teaches Grade 2 in a low income neighborhood with a class of 22 childen many of whom are barely even capable of reading and writing despite being 8 years old. Many of her students have parents who are addicted to alcohol or drugs and/or are abusive/neglectful.

The trophy culture is often criticized but its an amazing boost to kids like hers who have shitty lives and need every boost they can get to keep them from getting into drugs and gangs as they grow up.

Mentally healthy kids from upper middle class families who do well don't need trophies because they have great hands dealt to them and will almost certainly be successful adults regardless. I was very much like your kids growing up (I'm 25 now, not that much older than your kids I think?).. Getting very high grades and often getting passed up for recognition of them. I went to university, did well there, and am now successfully employed in a good job with benefits and a good salary. I honestly can't even remember which awards I got at high school graduation because it doesn't matter to me at all. I did well regardless, thats my trophy.

I am pretty sure my kids know it in spite of their young age. That's probably one reason why they don't make a big deal out of all of this.

Just to be the devil's advocate, while kids like mine are virtually certain to end up with good careers regardless, you have to wonder from a societal perspective if it we wouldn't get more bang for our buck by supporting high achievers a bit more (who could maybe reach even more stratospheric heights) rather than by putting lots of resources into helping the Stevies of the world simply stay out of trouble.

(A colleague of mine just told me I was being cynical today BTW.)

[esquire]

^ You can't be serious. When I think of my most intelligent friends, I can think of a few extremely accomplished people like nationally recognized professionals who are now influential senior partners in their firms, internationally recognized and ivy league educated science researchers, acclaimed educators, etc. What purpose would it serve to redirect resources from attempting to keep a kid out of jail and lead some semblance of a productive life in an effort to help these high achievers to reach even greater heights? If you're already the heavy hitter accountant or working on some major groundbreaking scientific research, what more will a few thousand dollars of resources directed at you in elementary school really accomplish?

Obviously there are exceptions, but the highest achievers generally have the best parental support in terms of time, effort and financial resources. Adding the lion's share of school resources to that pile would be a pretty huge step in the direction of winner take all.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Just to be the devil's advocate, while kids like mine are virtually certain to end up with good careers regardless, you have to wonder from a societal perspective if it we wouldn't get more bang for our buck by supporting high achievers a bit more (who could maybe reach even more stratospheric heights) rather than by putting lots of resources into helping the Stevies of the world simply stay out of trouble.

My money's on keeping the "Stevies" out of trouble for bang for your buck.

The societal cost of criminals, addicts and dysfunctional families is huge. In addition to direct costs such as social assistance, they tend to put more indirect strain on other parts of the system - healthcare and policing come to mind.

If Stevie becomes at least employable in the future, he's now contributing to that system instead of costing it. Stevie will likely be happier too on a personal level.

Second, by breaking the cycle of poverty, you set the stage for success for the next generation. Should Stevie have kids, his kids are likely to do better if he's a decent parent.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am pretty sure my kids know it in spite of their young age. That's probably one reason why they don't make a big deal out of all of this.

Just to be the devil's advocate, while kids like mine are virtually certain to end up with good careers regardless, you have to wonder from a societal perspective if it we wouldn't get more bang for our buck by supporting high achievers a bit more (who could maybe reach even more stratospheric heights) rather than by putting lots of resources into helping the Stevies of the world simply stay out of trouble.

Increasing social inequality as a solution to social inequality is... I don't even know what to say.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'll take your word for it I guess, although I wonder how physically affectionate such relationships could be. Hugging? Kissing? Cuddling? Sex between males is still fairly taboo in a lot of circles. My impression is that most (generally) straight men, if they did something sexual with another male, would not tell their buddies, and that a topic like that doesn't appear on incel forums.

To be clear I get the feeling this incel culture is an offshoot of the crappy machismo culture I am saying is a problem. But these guys did not invent it, and they are not the only ones perpetuating it.

I agree that on the whole they also seem to have a bunch of psychological problems that contribute to their woes. This is kind of obvious. There are a lot of people who never have sex with anyone and do OK, and there are a lot of incels who rant on the internet but don't kill anyone.

I couldn't agree more with all of your posts on this topic. I firmly believe that just as women face intense societal pressure to be physically attractive, men face intense societal pressure to be dominant, confident, and sexually successful. Not everyone can be confident or charismatic, and it's unfair that that's considered an expectation. I think it was you too that mentioned how sexualized the media has become. Look at your average sitcom: dudes complain because they haven't gotten laid for 2 whole months Everything around us says that to be a man worthy of respect you need to have lots of friends, frequent sex, and professional success. And beyond this, because of the treatment of sex in the media, it's not that you're less successful if you don't get it as much, you're not even normal. So these guys internalize the identity of "loser," and unfortunately that leads some to lash back out at society in this way. I don't believe this is tied to entitlement or anything like that. It's not even tied to sexual drive, but to the need for the social acceptance that sex provides. That's why I don't think therapeutic sex workers would fix men like this. It's not about the sex, it's about the woman validating them as people by giving them that affection.

So to answer Vid's question about what can be done about this: significantly expanded mental health support. Not all of these guys are autistic. But I'd bet they all suffer significantly from a total lack of self worth, because they believe sex is what determines the success of them as a person. They need support for depression so they can live their lives without relying on others' approval for their happiness.

So finally, to agree with Esquire, when these guys lash out like this, mocking them as "losers who can't get laid" isn't productive. I get why people do it: it's similar to everyone calling terrorists "cowards" after they blow things up. But other guys who feel the same way and will have their deepest issues confirmed: people don't respect them and dismiss them because of their lack of social success. They may not "cope" with it so violently as this guy did, but validating their negative self-perception as correct won't be preventing any future 1/1000000 crazies from lashing out the same way.