Gender and violence issues

[kaiten123]

Sry arch, i responded that way because i'm not really taking you seriously.

[Arch0wl]

yeah, your failures to articulate objections or accurately read what you're responding to are not my problem.

taking an argument seriously, however, which I intepret as "accurately reading a claim and articulating an objection to it", is the point of this board. saying you don't take someone seriously is below the rigor of what this board demands; it's a rhetorical dismissal -- a refusal to actually defend your stance.

in other words, if you're going to exist on "contradiction" level or below on Graham's hierarchy, you should not be involved in this discussion on this particular board.

[kaiten123]

by that reasoning, this entire thread should probably be moved lol. but you have a point. its been quite a while since i stopped pretending not to be looking down on people when they start sounding like an average mra troll.
here's a shot though:

before we start, lets check merriam-webster since you clearly can't do this yourself.

misogyny: a hatred of women

culture: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)

puting these together to understand "culture of misogyny" should be a pretty simple task, try it out.

the link from "culture of misogyny" to his actions becomes obvious if we break it into 2 parts. one from culture of misogyny to personal misogyny and another from personal misogyny to his actions. i believe that even you already see the second part so i'll just worry about the first.

lets first acknowledge that such a culture exists and that he was involved in it.
there are numerous ways to see that this is true, but to take just one: he was a member of PUAhate.com, a site that primarily served as a place for people to come and express essentially the same views that he expressed in his videos about hating women. the site is currently down but here's a brief look at the reaction to him murdering innocents:


now we need only notice that being surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs. this is so widely known throughout psychology, sociology, etc. that i feel silly having to even say it. but that is really all thats needed to prove my point.

lastly, i will mention that nobody is claiming that misogyny is the only thing that influenced this tragedy and to suggest as much is an intentional straw man. rather, misogyny fits in nicely with all the other likely influencers. lets take a look at your own list and show how everything fits nicely with the role of misogyny.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

numerous factors that contributed to the cause-->effect of that shooter's actions, including his neurological makeup, his existing genetic predispositions, his home environment and his interpersonal relationships, among others.

neurological makeup: while it is not possible to know all the details of the configuration of his brain and how each connection influenced every action (unless maybe if you are the god of neuroscience, here to advance research by 1000s of years). i think it is safe to say his brain was abnormal. this likely played a strong role in both his involvement in the previously mentioned culture of misogyny as well as his eventually reaching the point where he felt murder was the best solution to his problem. I have many female sources that claim he was physically attractive and that until he opened his mouth they couldn't imagine him having trouble getting laid (which was what made him so mad in the first place) so its reasonable to think that his mind was the primary factor in his inability to get laid, which is part of what lead to joining misogynyst groups, woman hating, etc.

genetic predispositions: this is incredibly important. while nobody is born hating 1/2 the population or already being a murderer, there are certainly genetic factors that make such things more likely or easier to trigger in some people than in others. a normal person could deal with rejection without hating all women, and even if they did reach the point of women hating, they would not go out and murder a bunch of people. this is the age old relation between nature and nurture. comlicated thoughts/actions like hating an entire gender, or deciding to go on a killing spree can't be explained by either one by its self, but require both.

home environment: this is probably the hardest one to find reliable info about or decipher in any meaningful way. based on his videos, and further supported by his home, car, etc. it sounds like the typical story of moderately wealthy entitled youth who *almost* always gets what he wants, has one thing he wants but doesnt get and freaks out about it. the "thing" he wanted was women. that was awefully speculative, but by the end of the post it should be clear that it doesn't even matter.

interpersonal relationships: this really ties into everything else, his relationships with females went nowhere and his relationships with males are largely unknown at this time, but given the forums he frequented, at least a portion of them served largely to reinforce his women hating.

among others: we could go on, but it shouldn't be needed, the point is that other factors existing not only doesn't negate misogyny being a factor, but rather, the various factors can be closely related.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by kaiten123

lets check merriam-webster since you clearly can't do this yourself

immediately we're off to a bad start.

the merriam-webster definition of any word is going to give you the most layman definition of a word. "misogyny" does not mean the same thing in gender theory as its literal meaning.

further, the literal meaning is often not what is meant when 'misogyny' is used; it's more akin to 'homophobia', where someone simply means a bias against women or a dislike of some female tendency.

if you're still not convinced of why what you just did is far too simplistic for this discussion, merriam-webster defines "fallacy" as "a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea." this is not the specialist definition that someone who uses the word 'fallacy' will use. they will use it to specifically mean "an error in reasoning." you have to get to definition 3 to find anything approximating this, and even then they define it as "an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference" -- but 'often plausible' is not even a criterion of the academic definition of 'fallacy'.

in other words, simply beating the drum of "misogyny means 'hatred of women'" will take you nowhere. it's extremely hyperbolic to say that there is a culture of literally hating half of the adult planet. either you're exaggerating or reading something else as hate; people do not experience emotions that intensely on such a wide scale. this is especially blockheaded considering the 20th century has seen races of people killed on a mass scale out due to hate -- the kind of hate that allows someone to watch a family die and feel nothing. to call an online forum of people who post about bias against men "misogynist" and cite a literal definition of 'hatred' is stretching that word to the extreme.

so it's very likely that the author means something else -- most likely some general bias against women in a negative direction.

the link from "culture of misogyny" to his actions becomes obvious if we break it into 2 parts.

explain how this is not simply post hoc ergo propter hoc style reasoning.

many people try to explain that their child became smart in adulthood because of their environment. yet, twin studies repeatedly show that adult IQ is highly heritable and that parental environment matters little once base needs are provided for. it is enormously tempting to attribute a person's actions to their immediate environment and you're doing that without a basis for gauging the environment's contribution.

lets first acknowledge that such a culture exists and that he was involved in it.

let's not; that's accepting your conclusion as a means of establishing your premise.

your picture does not tell me anything that a screenshot from 4chan could not tell me.

"now we need only notice that being surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs" -- actually, posting on an internet forum is hardly "being surrounded by a culture." you can leave whenever you want. in fact, you're more likely to seek out an internet forum because you already have some pre-existing belief. if the internet forum works against you, then you'd likely leave. given that I know this shooter acted violent at of the parties he went to, I doubt this is a person who would stick around an internet forum once given personal abuse.

"[surrounded by a culture with certain beliefs influences your own beliefs] is so widely known throughout psychology, sociology, etc. that i feel silly having to even say it. but that is really all thats needed to prove my point."

actually, a book which was a finalist for the pulitzer prize in nonfiction was enormously dedicated to explaining how culture does not contribute to development nearly as much as we think it does.

the dominance of culture in development and in influence of behavior is an ideological position in psychology, not a "widely known" fact.

misogyny fits in nicely with all the other likely influencers.

this is inane.

neurologically your reasoning that his brain "fits nicely with misogyny" is that "it is safe to say his brain was abnormal, [which] played a strong role in both his involvement in the previously mentioned culture of misogyny as well as his eventually reaching the point where he felt murder was the best solution to his problem."

you have no idea what his brain composition is.

you have no idea what neurological attributes contributed to his attitudes toward women.

you are making conclusions you have no grounding to make. you are, essentially, speculating and claiming certainty via speculation.

"its reasonable to think that his mind was the primary factor in his inability to get laid" does not say anything about his neurological makeup; his "mind" can refer to his cognition which is independent of his neurological makeup. just because something is "mental" does not mean it is "neurological."

your attempt to tie genetics to misogyny did not actually claim anything about his genetic predispositions other than that "it's really complicated" and that some of this must be related to misogyny, somehow.

your home environment paragraph concluded that you can't actually draw any conclusions about this, which is a rather unfortunate thing to say when you're "show how everything fits nicely with the role of misogyny."

the most important thing you said was this:

"his relationships with females went nowhere and his relationships with males are largely unknown at this time, but given the forums he frequented, at least a portion of them served largely to reinforce his women hating."

which is probably true.

and drawing a cultural explanation probably isn't -- or at least, you can't conclude so with the amount of information you have.

labeling this a product of a "culture of misogyny" glosses over lots of complicated factors that have to do with it. you don't know the degree of contribution that various cultural factors play. you cannot know this without better measurements. to wildly claim this is to not only simplify the issue but distort it; certainly his environment contributed to this, but you don't know how much, and to paint a "culture of misogyny" as a huge aspect of this so readily is intellectually irresponsible.

but I want to draw attention to something you did, because I think it underlies a much more troublesome issue with the way you think. you immediately suspected anyone critical of this particular line of semantic distortion as being "an mra", as if that's the prime opposition that could exist for this sort of thing. this position wasn't even suggested, but you pinned it on someone who contradicted what I suspect is your ideology anyway.

you are thinking in black-white terms and it's going to narrow your worldview to that of an ideologue.

don't do that.

[kaiten123]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

the merriam-webster definition of any word is going to give you the most layman definition of a word. "misogyny" does not mean the same thing in gender theory as its literal meaning.

further, the literal meaning is often not what is meant when 'misogyny' is used; it's more akin to 'homophobia', where someone simply means a bias against women or a dislike of some female tendency.

these definitions are pretty consistent actually. theres some nuanced difference but nothing big enough to effect my claims. (unless, of course, you have some absurd definition of hate that excludes everything short of wanting to murder people)

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

this is especially blockheaded considering the 20th century has seen races of people killed on a mass scale out due to hate -- the kind of hate that allows someone to watch a family die and feel nothing. to call an online forum of people who post about bias against men "misogynist" and cite a literal definition of 'hatred' is stretching that word to the extreme.

so it only counts as "hate" when it reaches the point of genocide, mass murder, etc.
what an absurd way of thinking. such a narrow definition makes the word useless. obviously the idea that any culture could propogate hate against any gender would be nearly impossible with such an exaggerated definition of "hate"

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

explain how this is not simply post hoc ergo propter hoc style reasoning.

i hadnt even started explaining the reasoning yet lol, how could it be -any- style of reasoning yet. i outlined what i was going to show later, gj jumping to conclusions before you finished reading though.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

that's accepting your conclusion as a means of establishing your premise.

nope, i just put the conclusion first so you knew what to expect, the reasoning that immediately followed was not based on it.
i can see that my style of stating what i'm going to show and then showing it is immensly confusing to you.
i really prefer writing/reading that way though, but maybe thats because i mostly write/read math stuff where that style is common. :/

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

posting on an internet forum is hardly "being surrounded by a culture." you can leave whenever you want. in fact, you're more likely to seek out an internet forum because you already have some pre-existing belief. if the internet forum works against you, then you'd likely leave. given that I know this shooter acted violent at of the parties he went to, I doubt this is a person who would stick around an internet forum once given personal abuse.

i never said he was forced to stay lol where are you pulling this out from, i thought i made it quite clear later on that he surrounded himself with this culture, that doesn't make him any less surrounded. and i also thought it ws clear that he already identified with the culture but that it ~reinforced~ the related beliefs. for someone who got so upset over me misunderstanding your argument earlier, you sure are bad at reading. (also, going to note that my understanding of your argument was consistent with the wording of your first post)

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

actually, a book which was a finalist for the pulitzer prize in nonfiction was enormously dedicated to explaining how culture does not contribute to development nearly as much as we think it does.

the dominance of culture in development and in influence of behavior is an ideological position in psychology, not a "widely known" fact.

that book neither contradicts anything i've said, nor does it say that culture doesn't influence someone's beliefs. things don't have to be either 100% genetic or 100% cultural, there is a middle ground once you stop thinking in black and white. i believe you mistakenly interpreted my argument as supporting the "blank slate" idea despite me making claims just a bit later that would contradict it.


and for the rest of your response, i believe you've completely misunderstood nearly everything i said, though, this time it was patially my fault for not realising how much i would have to explain everything. for example, i never claimed to know much about his brain composition, i never claimed to know -anything- with certainty, etc. so very little of that is relavent to my main point.

just a few last bits though:

his cognition which is independent of his neurological makeup. just because something is "mental" does not mean it is "neurological."

i would disagree with this but that is an even longer discussion on its own

don't know the degree of contribution that various cultural factors play

never claimed i did, and i don't need to. i never said anything was the biggest, or even a big factor. i'm simply saying something is a factor, not that it contributed more or less than any other.

you immediately suspected anyone critical of this particular line of semantic distortion as being "an mra"

nope, sounding like something =/= being that thing. if i made some noise, and someone said i sounded like a dog, i would not think they called me a dog.
edit: i'd also like to clarify my confusing naming. i imagine that the majority of people i would think of as "mra trolls" aren't even mras, but rather trolls that take on the persona of an exagerated caricature of an mra because its really good for trolling.

[dore]

My post was admittedly imprecise, I meant something closer to 'and misogyny was an underlying factor in enabling the manifestation of those things'. He may have been neurologically/genetically imbalanced, but the culture of misogyny in which he immersed himself reinforced the things which he deduced himself. Maybe he still would have killed those people if everyone he ever expressed those views to told him that he was a psychopath, but it might have helped if society didn't ignore his many warning signs (as have been discussed previously in this thread).

It was a general article, not intended to be studied with academic rigor, of course it's not going to have twelve pages building the definition of the words it's using. It assumes that the person reading the article will understand those words in the generally accepted way. Arguing over the semantics of words which have generally accepted meanings isn't the point.

And even if it was an academic article that defined its terms with rigor and cited the foundations on which it was building, you don't necessarily have the means (or the desire) to link individual societal causes to individual events; rather, you're trying to show that general trends that exist are exemplified by this thing that happened. I'm not going to argue that this is the most well-written thing, but arguing the semantics of the definition of the word misogyny is missing the point entirely.