He got shot, but not killed, so you are technically correct in stating that he is alive. I guess you totally defeated the parent commenter's point, good thing the shooters didn't have good aim, right?
I take the OP's original point to be that far-right ideological extremists have targeted, injured, and killed orders of magnitude more people than far-left ideological extremists during the last few years, which seems to me to be incontrovertible without resort to sophistry. Also, given that the larger context of this discussion is terrorist attacks rather than political confrontations that turned violent, it's relevant to ask "how many random bystanders have been killed when self-identified white supremacists opened fire on crowds vs. bystanders killed when self-identified 'antifa' have done so."
The 8ch.net/delicious/ board routinely had extremely realistic animated images and video of prepubescent girls having sex with older men. The images were reported to mods who left them up.
That's the sort of thing that starts to hit some really grey areas, and also starts to illuminate some of the differences in the justifications for banning CP. If you're against CP because it means the exploitation of children, animated images of children that do not exist should be fine - but if you're against it due to it being disgusting or normalizing the abuse of real children it's not. However, I believe that the Supreme Court has thus far held that drawings fall under the 1st Amendment, as (IMO) they most certainly should.
There is an important shade of grey between "clearly artificial image" and "real image", where "artificial but real-looking image" sits. It has the same normalizing effect as a real image.
Otherwise there's no reason to oppose real images, since the harm is done before the image is ever seen.
> Otherwise there's no reason to oppose real images, since the harm is done before the image is ever seen.
We ban specifically real images for two general reasons - one is that allowing them encourages the production of more such images, necessitating additional abuse, and the second is that for the children involved, knowing that other people are looking at those images is a huge violation.
Neither of those applies for "artificial but real-looking" images.
Fun fact, there are places in the Western world where it is considered illegal to the same degree as photographs of children being abused. And ditto for textual descriptions of this fictionally happening. Scandinavia, for instance. Which is admittedly not famous for its uncompromising approach to freedom of expression.
When a young woman has trouble with life she's given sympathy and resources. When a young man has trouble he's told to stop being such a wimp. Not surprisingly some of them snap.
Yeah. Men are still, to a huge extent, discouraged from sharing and expressing their emotions as much as women (since that behavior is seen as inherently feminine). People still make fun of guys for crying and other healthy ways of expressing distress. The "strong silent type" still seems to be many people's masculine ideal. This is exacerbated on hate-filled sites like 4chan and 8chan, where guys who express feelings nonviolently are regularly mocked as "soyboys" or whatever; putting that sort of rhetoric alongside racist propaganda is, as other people have commented, an effective way to promote racial resentment and, in turn, violent outbursts.
The problem of discouraging men from expressing their emotions nonviolently is definitely not confined to these boards, however. I see tons of characters in media and people in real life who model the idea that anger or violence, while bad, are understandable ways for a man to express feelings (the same sentiment for women is much rarer). It might be bad that a man did something violent, but it doesn't undermine his very identity by eroding his masculinity in the same way that weeping and sobbing and being sensitive might.
I can't count the number of times I saw guys punching walls in movies growing up, often in circumstances where their characters were really feeling sad or hopeless or hurt. Women in movies under the same circumstances would often cry or be consoled. Or to put it another way, in a movie scene with a man and woman under extreme stress in a room together, I've never seen the woman punching holes in her own walls while the man sits on the bed crying. There are tons of other examples of stress reactions that are usually modeled in media along gender lines in this same way.
I think this stuff is self-fulfilling. Guys are discouraged from acknowledging difficult feelings except through stoicism or anger, and in turn people continue to associate that behavior with guys. When men on 8chan start buying into racist ideology and feeling like they can only express their distress through anger and violence, it seems inevitable that things like shootings will follow. The copycat effect with shootings that already happened only encourages it (see how this shooter cited the NZ shooter as inspiration).
I think things are improving, but I think that until guys are trained to express a full spectrum of emotions openly and without shame, and people in general are acclimated to supporting and validating men's feelings, it's going to keep encouraging this sort of snapping behavior.
The moment that sharing weakness actually turns women on and attracts them sexually, is the moment that the societal discouragement of weakness in men will evaporate.
on the contrary, the sexual selections of females reward "toxic" behavior (confident, dominant, selfish, disagreeable), and punish guys who are socially inept toxic little worms (needy, people-pleasing, over-intellectual, "safe").
Who reproduced, the guy capable of killing multiple potential rapists? Or the guy that let's his wife get taken cause he just couldn't engage in violence cause it's 'wrong and bad and toxic'
> When men on 8chan start buying into racist ideology and feeling like they can only express their distress through anger and violence, it seems inevitable that things like shootings will follow.
I agree, but there is even more to this part. The Nazi ideology was not just about superiority, about also about struggle between races for power and need to win that struggle. You have to fight for your own and prove superiority through military conquest and physical domination of other races.
For that to happen, you need certain kind of fighter. Ruthlessness and nazi really seen ruthlessness as virtue.
Empathetic male eager to share emotions is less likely to gain domination through violence. Or through manipulation, backstabbing, lying and all those things that are seen as practical tactic by white supremacists. Less likely to push knowingly for laws that harm minorities or political opponents. Less likely beat or kill opponent. Less likely to force own friends into compliance with own ideas.
By that I want to say that the aggressive masculinity is virtue and something you want males to be, if you have aggressive goals. Hence peer pressuring males to be like that.
Right, yes, That’s what I meant: it’s advantageous for fascist agitators to encourage traditional repressive masculinity for the reasons you outline. Being susceptible to it makes you useful to fascists.
How about Antifa putting the journalist Andy Ngo in the hospital? Or the professor who hit a guy in the head with a bike lock?
a weak resistance movement that hasn't even killed a single person yet.
Congressman Steve Scalise couldn't be reached for comment.