Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum

A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes.
Anyone interested in researching, learning, discussing and debating with us, please come join our community!
 
HomeHome  PortalPortal  CalendarCalendar  Latest imagesLatest images  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

 

 I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.

Go down 
+20
nopenever
Vepr
thelmar
Screamingophelia
TigerKing357
QuestionMark
Norwegian
Justjenna
TheSpiral
lasttrain
PaintItBlack
bradt93
Amarantha
suburbanmessiah
sororityalpha
Lunkhead McGrath
Kiwik
BlackandWhite
Lizpuff
anonacc489
24 posters
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
anonacc489




Posts : 66
Contribution Points : 73791
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-03-08

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 10:54 am

I've spent alot of time lurking this board, and almost 90% of the things I see mentioning Cullen's book act as if he has reached the most heinous and unfounded conclusion possible, and the book is nothing more than Cullen shouting declarative statements at the reader and pushing "Eric is a psychopath and Dylan depressive" as a complete 100% fact, when in reality none of that happened in the book.

I've had Columbine sitting on my shelf for the past month, and after reading a post which once again threw a jab at Cullen's book, I decided to read it for myself and see what it said that everyone here found so heinous.

As it turns out - Cullen himself didn't actually say that they anyone was a psychopath or a depressive. He merely was documenting the conclusions that the detectives and psychologists working on the case came to, specifically Dwayne Fusilier.

That's it.

He never ever said "Eric was a psychopath. That's why it all happened. Dylan was innocent."
EVER.
And the bits that he focused on Dwayne's research, he went into detail as to how Dwayne reached that conclusion, and presented it in a compelling and thoughtful manner. Cullen does not offer the psychopathy conclusion as fact, or the be all end all reason behind Columbine, he merely offers it as a single possible reason for it to happen.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is everyone here has with the book. If anything, I think it would be appreciated here, because Cullen pretty much took Columbine and made it into something more than "two bullied kids kill people". He instead shows how it's a much deeper issue than that, something the community was doing for a long time before the book. Cullen just took it to mainstream.
Back to top Go down
Lizpuff

Lizpuff


Posts : 2677
Contribution Points : 95424
Forum Reputation : 1190
Join date : 2016-03-02
Age : 36

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 10:57 am

Youtube Cullen. He has many interviews where he explicitly says Eric was a psychopath and that Dylan was drawn into it by Eric. He never says Dylan was innocent, but he does not let his man crush on Dylan be lost at all.

My issue with his book is that he took many early "facts" about the case and put them into his book as facts when in truth those facts were proved to be myths. And after all of that he has never revised his book/comments and has never really afaik even said he made any factual mistakes in the book. I think he did finally make some sort of remark about Brenda Parker but other than that he says his book is the be all end all of Columbine books. And in my opinion it is not

_________________
Hold me now I need to feel complete
Like I matter to the one I need
Back to top Go down
BlackandWhite

BlackandWhite


Posts : 66
Contribution Points : 66562
Forum Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-12-20

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 2:31 pm

Cullen downplayed the bullying situation at Columbine way too much. He made it seem like bullying hardly even existed, despite multiple students speaking out about it. And he focused mainly on research that supports the "Eric is a psychopath and Dylan a depressed follower" claim, without providing other realistic possibilities (or at least not focusing on them enough). He's just a biased author. He took the research he liked and wrote around it.
Back to top Go down
Kiwik

Kiwik


Posts : 325
Contribution Points : 73426
Forum Reputation : 25
Join date : 2016-04-10

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 7:50 pm

Survivors of the massacre have even said that the book is full of inconsistencies. And as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] stated in interviews and articles he does call Eric a psychopath. Like others have said he paints Eric to be the mastermind and Dylan to be a reluctant follower, which isn't true. Not to mention his description of Eric couldn't be farther from how people who actually knew him described him.  People that knew Eric said he died a virgin yet Cullen wrote that he outbedded the football team. I mean come on. Eric himself wrote about how he couldn't get laid. Some of It is just flat out lies.
Back to top Go down
Lunkhead McGrath




Posts : 476
Contribution Points : 75386
Forum Reputation : 225
Join date : 2016-11-03

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: it's a mixed bag   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 8:47 pm

In general, I mostly like Cullen's book, as a sort of compendium of lots of things related to the story of Columbine. Certainly I have no problem with his writing style (go read Nicholas Pileggi or Robert Graysmith for a bad writing style) and I think his organization of the book is handled very well.

It's got its problems though.

I do feel that his "Eric = psycho, Dylan = emo follower" thing--which really is the centerpiece and purpose of his book--is an overgeneralization, and that he's writing the book around the research he liked. And he pushes it as THE answer to the whole thing, just like Robert Graysmith will never stop insisting that all that circumstantial evidence about Arthur Leigh Allen proves Allen is the Zodiac killer (for those of you who don't follow Zodiac, Arthur Leigh Allen's DNA, fingerprints, and handwriting do not match Zodiac.)
He did get the Brenda Parker story wrong, but deleted it completely from the 2016 revised version of the book, which contains a coda responding to some of the criticisms of the book. He's apologized for it (his detractors always bring it up first thing), whereas In Cold Blood still ends with a somber scene in a graveyard that Truman Capote completely fabricated.
He also feels way too sorry for Dylan, not unlike so many girls on the Internet who seem to love Dylan ("What a sweet, loving kid" he says in the 2016 coda. Sheesh. There's also the rather embarrassing line "Dylan Klebold was not a man of action. He was conscripted by one who was." CONSCRIPTED? Kee-rist...) and most people will bring up evidence that Dylan was planning to do something as early as 1997.
He also left a few people out of the book entirely, but I guess I wasn't THAT interested in Kyle Velasquez's story, or Kelly Flemyng's (neither are mentioned by name in the book at all) and I don't think he left them out to be insulting.
He goes over Eric and Dylan's journals seemingly ad nauseam, making the book rather repetitive in its later sections.
He also made a rather dumb comment about the Boston marathon bombing, acting as if that bomber guy and his accomplice worked the same way as Eric and Dylan (mastermind/follower.) That got some hilarious responses here.

I'd have to read the book a second time to be sure, but even with its flaws I couldn't quite get myself to hate it.

HOWEVER, there's the other side of the coin:

"Columbiners," in general, have shown themselves to be more than a bit disreputable, mostly because they all-too-often like Eric and Dylan way too much. Nothing Cullen has ever did is as wrong as nutjobs on the Internet who love E&D making comments to the effect that they were fighting back against bullies. Yeah, "bullies," like Kyle Velasquez and Steven Curnow and Rachel Scott, I'm sure those people just did TERRIBLE things to E&D!
Just as Cullen downplays "bullying" too much as the answer to the point where he says Columbine has little to nothing to do with bullying, "Columbiners" push it way too much. Bullying bullying bullying. And I'm saying that as someone who was at the bottom of my own high school's hierarchy (Cullen himself was bullied, which he talks about in the 2016 edition coda, and is grateful for the anti-bullying movement that sprung up after Columbine, so it's not like he's some redneck Republican who thinks bullying is a good thing or nonexistent or something.)
"Columbiners" also endlessly insist that Eric's diaries are some great big bluff, that he intentionally overplayed how full of hate he was knowing that we'd all read his journals after he was dead. Well.....so what? It doesn't mean that he wasn't full of hate, right? How "normal" can you be when you blow away 12 classmates you barely knew?
Columbiners also love to bring up the "ketchup incident," which a)may never have happened at all, and b)hardly strikes me as a particularly heinous example of bullying. (I would definitely do a double take if the incident in the terrible-looking movie "I'm Not Ashamed," about Rachel Scott--now the most famous victim, since the Cassie Bernall story didn't happen to Cassie Bernall--where a bunch of big football players in letterman jackets grab Eric and slide him along a greased floor into a wall, actually happened.)

In the end, I feel the "truth" probably lies somewhere between "bullying" and Cullen's theory, it's probably more complicated than either side makes it out to be.
But the "motive" isn't my main reason for being interested in Columbine.
My main reason for taking a renewed interest in the Columbine event--it happened while I was still in high school--is partially due to being haunted by the shock of the crime and the bits of eerie evidence surrounding it to this day ("Hitmen For Hire," 1999 class photo, the cafeteria footage, the footage of people fleeing, the crime-scene pictures of the aftermath, etc.) and partially due to an interest surrounding the details of the goings on at the school, and the various people who were bit players in the whole E&D drama (the girls in particular), leading up to the event.

Is Sarah Slater the girl sticking her tongue out next to Robyn Anderson in the class pic? Will someone confirm this for me? (Several people have falsely identified Rachel Scott as being in the front row. That's not her!)
Back to top Go down
sororityalpha
Top 10 Contributor
sororityalpha


Posts : 2914
Contribution Points : 121538
Forum Reputation : 1001
Join date : 2013-03-22

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 04, 2017 10:08 pm

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:
Is Sarah Slater the girl sticking her tongue out next to Robyn Anderson in the class pic?  Will someone confirm this for me?

I think it is Tiffany Burk

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Back to top Go down
sororityalpha
Top 10 Contributor
sororityalpha


Posts : 2914
Contribution Points : 121538
Forum Reputation : 1001
Join date : 2013-03-22

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 05, 2017 12:17 am


She was one of Robyn Anderson's best friends.

Back to top Go down
suburbanmessiah

suburbanmessiah


Posts : 146
Contribution Points : 67953
Forum Reputation : 25
Join date : 2016-10-31
Age : 39
Location : Canadania

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 05, 2017 1:09 am

I have never read the book, though I tried to. Like the OP mentioned I was curious as to what all the fuss was about... I couldn't even get to page 25! Chock full o'untruths, it is. That's not to say I won't ever read it, however. I could use it for a laugh one day.

@Lunkhead McGrath,* WELL SAID! S'matter of fact, there are A LOT of really nicely articulated posts on here...I enjoyed reading all of them. Now here is mine!

* tag not working?

_________________
We need to be proxies for Slender.
Back to top Go down
Amarantha

Amarantha


Posts : 202
Contribution Points : 71722
Forum Reputation : 211
Join date : 2016-08-20
Location : Italy

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 05, 2017 5:51 am

I've tried to read his book and all I kept thinking was: "Is this some kind of fanfiction?", as I turned page after page

_________________
GeoCities fangirl
Back to top Go down
bradt93




Posts : 716
Contribution Points : 89206
Forum Reputation : 255
Join date : 2016-12-21
Location : United States

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 05, 2017 6:35 am

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:
In general, I mostly like Cullen's book, as a sort of compendium of lots of things related to the story of Columbine.  Certainly I have no problem with his writing style (go read Nicholas Pileggi or Robert Graysmith for a bad writing style) and I think his organization of the book is handled very well.  

It's got its problems though.  

I do feel that his "Eric = psycho, Dylan = emo follower" thing--which really is the centerpiece and purpose of his book--is an overgeneralization, and that he's writing the book around the research he liked.  And he pushes it as THE answer to the whole thing, just like Robert Graysmith will never stop insisting that all that circumstantial evidence about Arthur Leigh Allen proves Allen is the Zodiac killer (for those of you who don't follow Zodiac, Arthur Leigh Allen's DNA, fingerprints, and handwriting do not match Zodiac.)  
He did get the Brenda Parker story wrong, but deleted it completely from the 2016 revised version of the book, which contains a coda responding to some of the criticisms of the book. He's apologized for it (his detractors always bring it up first thing), whereas In Cold Blood still ends with a somber scene in a graveyard that Truman Capote completely fabricated.  
He also feels way too sorry for Dylan, not unlike so many girls on the Internet who seem to love Dylan ("What a sweet, loving kid" he says in the 2016 coda.  Sheesh.  There's also the rather embarrassing line "Dylan Klebold was not a man of action.  He was conscripted by one who was."  CONSCRIPTED?  Kee-rist...)  and most people will bring up evidence that Dylan was planning to do something as early as 1997.
He also left a few people out of the book entirely, but I guess I wasn't THAT interested in Kyle Velasquez's story, or Kelly Flemyng's (neither are mentioned by name in the book at all) and I don't think he left them out to be insulting.  
He goes over Eric and Dylan's journals seemingly ad nauseam, making the book rather repetitive in its later sections.  
He also made a rather dumb comment about the Boston marathon bombing, acting as if that bomber guy and his accomplice worked the same way as Eric and Dylan (mastermind/follower.)  That got some hilarious responses here.

I'd have to read the book a second time to be sure, but even with its flaws I couldn't quite get myself to hate it.  

HOWEVER, there's the other side of the coin:

"Columbiners," in general, have shown themselves to be more than a bit disreputable, mostly because they all-too-often like Eric and Dylan way too much.   Nothing Cullen has ever did is as wrong as nutjobs on the Internet who love E&D making comments to the effect that they were fighting back against bullies.  Yeah, "bullies," like Kyle Velasquez and Steven Curnow and Rachel Scott, I'm sure those people just did TERRIBLE things to E&D!
Just as Cullen downplays "bullying" too much as the answer to the point where he says Columbine has little to nothing to do with bullying, "Columbiners" push it way too much.  Bullying bullying bullying.  And I'm saying that as someone who was at the bottom of my own high school's hierarchy (Cullen himself was bullied, which he talks about in the 2016 edition coda, and is grateful for the anti-bullying movement that sprung up after Columbine, so it's not like he's some redneck Republican who thinks bullying is a good thing or nonexistent or something.)  
"Columbiners" also endlessly insist that Eric's diaries are some great big bluff, that he intentionally overplayed how full of hate he was knowing that we'd all read his journals after he was dead.  Well.....so what?  It doesn't mean that he wasn't full of hate, right?  How "normal" can you be when you blow away 12 classmates you barely knew?
Columbiners also love to bring up the "ketchup incident," which a)may never have happened at all, and b)hardly strikes me as a particularly heinous example of bullying.  (I would definitely do a double take if the incident in the terrible-looking movie "I'm Not Ashamed," about Rachel Scott--now the most famous victim, since the Cassie Bernall story didn't happen to Cassie Bernall--where a bunch of big football players in letterman jackets grab Eric and slide him along a greased floor into a wall, actually happened.)  
 
In the end, I feel the "truth" probably lies somewhere between "bullying" and Cullen's theory, it's probably more complicated than either side makes it out to be.
But the "motive" isn't my main reason for being interested in Columbine.
My main reason for taking a renewed interest in the Columbine event--it happened while I was still in high school--is partially due to being haunted by the shock of the crime and the bits of eerie evidence surrounding it to this day ("Hitmen For Hire," 1999 class photo, the cafeteria footage, the footage of people fleeing, the crime-scene pictures of the aftermath, etc.) and partially due to an interest surrounding the details of the goings on at the school, and the various people who were bit players in the whole E&D drama (the girls in particular), leading up to the event.  

Is Sarah Slater the girl sticking her tongue out next to Robyn Anderson in the class pic?  Will someone confirm this for me?  (Several people have falsely identified Rachel Scott as being in the front row.  That's not her!)
Oh I see, so you don't think bullying is a problem? A lot of these school shootings happen, because of bullying and it needs to be stopped. I don't condone what Eric and Dylan did either, far from it. I'm just saying they're two sides to a story. Of course you can't overlook murder, but I always investigate what caused them to snap.
Back to top Go down
Lunkhead McGrath




Posts : 476
Contribution Points : 75386
Forum Reputation : 225
Join date : 2016-11-03

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Jan 06, 2017 6:50 pm

Oh I see, so you don't think bullying is a problem? A lot of these school shootings happen, because of bullying and it needs to be stopped. I don't condone what Eric and Dylan did either, far from it. I'm just saying they're two sides to a story. Of course you can't overlook murder, but I always investigate what caused them to snap.

Bullying is a huge problem and bullying certainly contributed to Columbine. Cullen is understating it. I just feel that a lot of Internet armchair sleuths are overstating it, and perhaps, because they were bullied. Hell, I was only bullied a little tiny bit and I've never come close to forgetting it.
Back to top Go down
PaintItBlack

PaintItBlack


Posts : 1656
Contribution Points : 95816
Forum Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-02-11
Age : 37

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Jan 11, 2017 3:49 am

Dwayne Fusilier's children went to Columbine. He spent several hours not knowing if his son had lived or died.This makes him unavoidably biased.He should have recused himself from the case.

_________________
We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus; That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing.-Charles Bukowski
Back to top Go down
lasttrain




Posts : 624
Contribution Points : 101438
Forum Reputation : 74
Join date : 2013-04-04

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 12, 2017 10:39 am

PaintItBlack wrote:
Dwayne Fusilier's children went to Columbine. He spent several hours not knowing if his son had lived or died.This makes him unavoidably biased.He should have recused himself from the case.

OK.

Then what about Dr. Frank Ochberg, Dr. Mary Ellen O'Toole, and Dr. Peter Langman, all of whom independently came to the same conclusions as Fuselier?

And what about the peer reviewers at the NVAVC conference in Leesburg, VA, who heard his findings and also endorsed them?

Or Dr. Robert Hare, who invented the category of psychopathy, and also endorsed Fuselier's diagnosis on his website?

We're talking about a consensus here.
Back to top Go down
TheSpiral

TheSpiral


Posts : 550
Contribution Points : 74114
Forum Reputation : 63
Join date : 2016-04-15
Age : 24
Location : Croatia

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Jan 12, 2017 12:01 pm

It's a good book (bite me), I read the whole thing, and the only thing that pissed me off is the parts where he presents Eric as a "swaggering ladies man". I think the bullying aspect of columbine is overinflated.

_________________
Falling out of airplanes and hiding out in holes
Waiting for the sunset to come, people going home
Jump out from behind them and shoot them in the head
Now everybody dancing, the dance of the dead
The dance of the dead, the dance of the dead
Back to top Go down
Justjenna




Posts : 46
Contribution Points : 66365
Forum Reputation : 10
Join date : 2016-12-29
Location : Durham, NC

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Jan 17, 2017 6:09 am

Could someone with time on their hands point out the inconsistencies in Cullens book? Other than the psychopath/depressive schtick and the Eric as a ladies man idea.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 7:50 pm

He does say that Eric Harris is a psychopath and that Dylan is depressdz, but hes arguing this based on what the team of experts have concluded. And hes merely a journalist, so, why should he be arguing otherwise?

OK: the bullying stuff. Now, thats slightly debatable. And I can't argue that hes views are entirely correct as I have seen a multitude of accounts regarding this. What I know is that hes not the only one denying that they were not bullied. Im not really sure I can say with 100% certainty whats true and what isnt.

'Ladies man': Not that I have made so much effort into looking into it, but it seems to me that Eric did date a few girls here and there.

Did Cullen make the claim that they were popular? Not that I can remember, but I fail to see them as such outcasts as they were made out to be. The reason for it is that some accounts described them as likeable, other accounts apparently talk about how they didnt like them because they ran into all kinds of problems. In other words, because they were having beefs with each other. And in other cases, they may have been percieved as outcasts or bullied. I certainly dont think that theres 'a one size fits all'. If they were as outcasts as Brooks made them out to be- 'the lowest of the low'- I think it's possible that more people would have supported this narrative. But we see that there are views to the contrary. In other words, I dont think that they were extremely popular, but I dont think that they were the Extreme outcasts that they were made out to be, either
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 7:52 pm

BlackandWhite wrote:
Cullen downplayed the bullying situation at Columbine way too much. He made it seem like bullying hardly even existed, despite multiple students speaking out about it. And he focused mainly on research that supports the "Eric is a psychopath and Dylan a depressed follower" claim, without providing other realistic possibilities (or at least not focusing on them enough). He's just a biased author. He took the research he liked and wrote around it.

He argues that it was specifically a problem at Columbine, but that it wasnt relevant to the attack
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 8:02 pm

Lunkhead McGrath wrote:
Oh I see, so you don't think bullying is a problem? A lot of these school shootings happen, because of bullying and it needs to be stopped. I don't condone what Eric and Dylan did either, far from it. I'm just saying they're two sides to a story. Of course you can't overlook murder, but I always investigate what caused them to snap.

Bullying is a huge problem and bullying certainly contributed to Columbine.  Cullen is understating it.  I just feel that a lot of Internet armchair sleuths are overstating it, and perhaps, because they were bullied.  Hell, I was only bullied a little tiny bit and I've never come close to forgetting it.  

It does, but it's not a sole factor. There are usually other factors at play at the same time. To what extent bullying may have contributing to Columbine I think thats uncertain. I dont bullying alone can describe how someone can do such extreme acts. A lot of people are bullied regularly and none of them shoots up a school. Yet, mental health issues are relevant when it comes to bullying, so Im not necessarily denying that it's a factor. But in any given case it is, its far from the only one
Back to top Go down
QuestionMark
Top 10 Contributor
QuestionMark


Posts : 4349
Contribution Points : 119628
Forum Reputation : 3191
Join date : 2017-09-04

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 10:19 pm

Norwegian wrote:
'Ladies man': Not that I have made so much effort into looking into it, but it seems to me that Eric did date a few girls here and there.

From what I understand they would ditch him pretty quickly.

_________________
"My guns are the only things that haven't stabbed me in the back."
-Kip Kinkel
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 10:57 pm

[quote="QuestionMark"]
Norwegian wrote:
'Ladies man': Not that I have made so much effort into looking into it, but it seems to me that Eric did date a few girls here and there.

From what I understand they would ditch him pretty quickly. [/quote

I think the more objective perspective is that he dated, yet he also experienced a number of setbacks and disappointments in the process
Back to top Go down
QuestionMark
Top 10 Contributor
QuestionMark


Posts : 4349
Contribution Points : 119628
Forum Reputation : 3191
Join date : 2017-09-04

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 11:05 pm

Norwegian wrote:
QuestionMark wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
'Ladies man': Not that I have made so much effort into looking into it, but it seems to me that Eric did date a few girls here and there.

From what I understand they would ditch him pretty quickly.

I think the more objective perspective is that he dated, yet he also experienced a number of setbacks and disappointments in the process

Sounds about right. Would be a tad disingenuous to mention his large numbers of dates without also adding those failures though, and while it's been a while since reading Cullen's book I don't remember him bringing up any of Eric's failures with girls.

_________________
"My guns are the only things that haven't stabbed me in the back."
-Kip Kinkel
Back to top Go down
TigerKing357

TigerKing357


Posts : 2
Contribution Points : 36000
Forum Reputation : 25
Join date : 2020-04-21

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 11:27 pm

columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.
Back to top Go down
Screamingophelia
Other Crimes Moderator & Top 10 Contributor
Screamingophelia


Posts : 6417
Contribution Points : 192899
Forum Reputation : 1317
Join date : 2017-08-25
Age : 42

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 11:39 pm

Researchers don't like him either, not just because of the bullying... because that has been debated ad naseum for literally 21 years now, but his inaccuracies like the Brenda thing, I believe what he wrote about Anne Marie was false (she even mentioned it, she said it was a lie) and the whole diagnosing post mortem is a problem, plus he speaks about Eric and Dylan as though he knows exactly what was going on in their mind... and to be fair even when Sue tries to talk about a diagnosis for eric and dylan post mortem it irks me and she was Dylan's mom!

_________________
"And you know, you know, you know, this can be beautiful, you say you're numb inside, but I can't agree. So the world's unfair, keep it locked out there. In here it's beautiful."
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 11:42 pm

TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

Not all of them. I think a lot of them emphasize with an image of Eric and Dylan. And a lot of this boils down to their own personal problems.

Having been bullied or abused as a child, I can definately see where this is coming from. Or, lets just say, middle school wasnt easy.

And this is probably where Columbiners come in. Some of them- like Lynn Ann- are so Extreme that they have very little limits. She glorifies Eric Harris and so on.

But others are a different story. I believe that they are feeling sympathy for the supposed bullying that the two supposedly endured, but they dont sympathize with the shooting
Back to top Go down
thelmar

thelmar


Posts : 760
Contribution Points : 82007
Forum Reputation : 3068
Join date : 2018-07-15

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeTue Apr 21, 2020 11:52 pm

Screamingophelia wrote:
Researchers don't like him either, not just because of the bullying... because that has been debated ad naseum for literally 21 years now, but his inaccuracies like the Brenda thing, I believe what he wrote about Anne Marie was false (she even mentioned it, she said it was a lie) and the whole diagnosing post mortem is a problem, plus he speaks about Eric and Dylan as though he knows exactly what was going on in their mind... and to be fair even when Sue tries to talk about a diagnosis for eric and dylan post mortem it irks me and she was Dylan's mom!

^All of this. While I agree there are some people (mostly those new to the case and who are currently going through their own issues with bullying) who think bullying was the cause of Columbine and don't want to hear otherwise, I think there are a lot more people who realize bullying is just another piece of the puzzle.
My problem with Cullen is all that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] mentioned. He had to know Brenda Parker was a liar, yet he included her anyway because it fit his narrative. He takes the smallest thing that Eric wrote or did and twists it all out of recognition and presents it as psychopathy on a platter. When, if you actually have knowledge of the thing Cullen's referring to you can recognize quite quickly what an enormous stretch he's made. But that's Cullen's schtick- he knows that the vast majority are not up nights reading the 11k. He knows he can paint a picture of something and the majority will eat it hook, line, and sinker because they are not motivated enough, or just not capable of finding all the evidence that proves what he says is false. He will say in one breath that when Eric did something it equals psychopath, but in the next breath say that when Dylan did the exact same thing he was depressed. It can't be both ways.
I think he's a lazy journalist. I think he was handed a narrative by Kate Battan and Dwight Fuselier and he looked only for those things that supported that narrative. There is very little critical thinking in most of his analysis.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 12:03 am

He does come off as a bit simplistic at times. But I think that hes opponrnts also exaggarates the claims made against him, at times.
Some of it may be true, but there are also claims which seems a bit blown out of proportions.
Back to top Go down
Vepr




Posts : 33
Contribution Points : 39920
Forum Reputation : 25
Join date : 2020-04-15

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 12:45 am

My $0.02  (FYI I haven't read Cullen's book yet, but I get the jist of it)

To start off with, I actually agree with Cullen and user lasttrain above in that there is a consensus amongst doctors about Eric = psychopath, Dylan = sad.  Where I disagree that NBK was Eric's idea - I think it was Dylan's idea originally, but he only carried it out because of his friendship with Eric.

So sometime in Dylan's Freshman or Sophomore year he started getting more and more depressed and deflated.  Was this from bullying?  neuro-psychiatric issue?  sleep disorder?  thyroid problem?  who knows...this is where there is a lot of disagreement in those that study Columbine.  But for whatever reason he was depressed and deflated, he didn't know how to ask for help and nobody seemed to notice it.  (Side note, I think it is partially a parents responsibility to be a mind reader when dealing with kids and teens, which is my sole criticism of Sue K.)

So we have this depressed teen with a strong intellect just flopping in the wind, his parents aren't paying attention to his problems and he is lost in a sea of 1,800 other kids at his HS.  He also mistakenly believes that he is unloveable, ugly and pathetic.  Now along comes hothead Eric, (who himself had been through the ringer, constantly being ripped away from friends and having to start over at a new school - there are some good write ups out there that suggest that Eric had C-PTSD rather than being a psychopath) but whatever it was you have an angry kid who is in a bad place mentally that had been losing friends because of his temper.  

The two become fast friends.

In Dylan Eric found someone that wasn't turned off by his rage, in Eric (and his rage) Dylan found someone that made him feel alive again.  This is the tragic chemistry between them - Eric's outward anger mirrored Dylan's inner pain.  Thus began the downward spiral, Brooks Brown said in a BBC documentary on YT called "The Columbine Killers" (Can't link yet, new account) that as their friendship grew there was a noticeable change in both of them and they both got really dark.  They had quite a lot of similarities; computers, video games, and an underlying hatred for their HS - they both blamed it for their problems.  This is where I believe Dylan found someone who he could share his depressed juvenile fantasies about blowing up Columbine.  (In Dylan's journals he mentions NBK as early as 1997).  Eric's angry energy is what enabled Dylan to actually go through with it.

Let's talk about 4-20-99, which as we all agree was not a successful school shooting but was a failed school bombing.  E&D prepared for roughly a year for 4-20 and set out to kill hundreds.  If they had researched bombs more and done more testing (and found a better explosive than propane) they might have achieved a triple digit death count.  This leads into another belief of mine that Columbine really hasn't been duplicated, most of the other major school shootings that have happened were quasi spur of the moment shootings at the hand of a complete loon, (Cho-VT, Lanza-NT, Cruz-SD) which all followed a simple plan, walk in, find people, shoot and kill them, then use last bullet on themselves.  4-20 was much more thought out than that, if it was just Eric I could see him doing what CHo and Lanza did, but his partner in death had an intellect and wasn't impulsive like that.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 5:51 am

[quote="Vepr"]My $0.02  (FYI I haven't read Cullen's book yet, but I get the jist of it)

To start off with, I actually agree with Cullen and user lasttrain above in that there is a consensus amongst doctors about Eric = psychopath, Dylan = sad.  Where I disagree that NBK was Eric's idea - I think it was Dylan's idea originally, but he only carried it out because of his friendship with Eric.

So sometime in Dylan's Freshman or Sophomore year he started getting more and more depressed and deflated.  Was this from bullying?  neuro-psychiatric issue?  sleep disorder?  thyroid problem?  who knows...this is where there is a lot of disagreement in those that study Columbine.  But for whatever reason he was depressed and deflated, he didn't know how to ask for help and nobody seemed to notice it.  (Side note, I think it is partially a parents responsibility to be a mind reader when dealing with kids and teens, which is my sole criticism of Sue K.)

So we have this depressed teen with a strong intellect just flopping in the wind, his parents aren't paying attention to his problems and he is lost in a sea of 1,800 other kids at his HS.  He also mistakenly believes that he is unloveable, ugly and pathetic.  Now along comes hothead Eric, (who himself had been through the ringer, constantly being ripped away from friends and having to start over at a new school - there are some good write ups out there that suggest that Eric had C-PTSD rather than being a psychopath) but whatever it was you have an angry kid who is in a bad place mentally that had been losing friends because of his temper.  

The two become fast friends.

In Dylan Eric found someone that wasn't turned off by his rage, in Eric (and his rage) Dylan found someone that made him feel alive again.  This is the tragic chemistry between them - Eric's outward anger mirrored Dylan's inner pain.  Thus began the downward spiral, Brooks Brown said in a BBC documentary on YT called "The Columbine Killers" (Can't link yet, new account) that as their friendship grew there was a noticeable change in both of them and they both got really dark.  They had quite a lot of similarities; computers, video games, and an underlying hatred for their HS - they both blamed it for their problems.  This is where I believe Dylan found someone who he could share his depressed juvenile fantasies about blowing up Columbine.  (In Dylan's journals he mentions NBK as early as 1997).  Eric's angry energy is what enabled Dylan to actually go through with it.

Let's talk about 4-20-99, which as we all agree was not a successful school shooting but was a failed school bombing.  E&D prepared for roughly a year for 4-20 and set out to kill hundreds.  If they had researched bombs more and done more testing (and found a better explosive than propane) they might have achieved a triple digit death count.  This leads into another belief of mine that Columbine really hasn't been duplicated, most of the other major school shootings that have happened were quasi spur of the moment shootings at the hand of a complete loon, (Cho-VT, Lanza-NT, Cruz-SD) which all followed a simple plan, walk in, find people, shoot and kill them, then use last bullet on themselves.  4-20 was much more thought out than that, if it was just Eric I could see him doing what CHo and Lanza did, but his partner in death had an intellect and wasn't impulsive like that.[/quote)

Not really sure how much of it was Dylans idea. My only reason for doubting Cullen on the NBK- thing is that Kate Battan disputes the idea that Dylan was a follower:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The problem, though, is that some of hes friends argued that he was much more of a follower, so again.
Back to top Go down
QuestionMark
Top 10 Contributor
QuestionMark


Posts : 4349
Contribution Points : 119628
Forum Reputation : 3191
Join date : 2017-09-04

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 11:58 am

Vepr wrote:
This leads into another belief of mine that Columbine really hasn't been duplicated, most of the other major school shootings that have happened were quasi spur of the moment shootings at the hand of a complete loon, (Cho-VT, Lanza-NT, Cruz-SD) which all followed a simple plan, walk in, find people, shoot and kill them, then use last bullet on themselves.  4-20 was much more thought out than that, if it was just Eric I could see him doing what CHo and Lanza did, but his partner in death had an intellect and wasn't impulsive like that.

The irony here is that the three shootings you just mentioned achieved a higher death toll than Columbine. Simple plans don't fuck up nearly as much because there's fewer moving parts involved; there's less opportunity for things to go wrong in the first place. If Eric and Dylan were truly smart - they had a year to think about this - they would've made a back-up plan in case their bombs failed. It would've been as easy as holding their fire until they walk into the lunchroom.

_________________
"My guns are the only things that haven't stabbed me in the back."
-Kip Kinkel
Back to top Go down
nopenever




Posts : 90
Contribution Points : 43718
Forum Reputation : 75
Join date : 2020-04-15

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 1:59 pm

TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

yes this is true.

I really don't think that bullying was the main motivation for the attack. It was mostly spite. On the basement tapes, they could have said a lot of things, and yet they didn't focus on bullying all that much, according to witnesses.

That said, Cullen is annoying and obviously wants to downplay Dylan's culpability.
Back to top Go down
nopenever




Posts : 90
Contribution Points : 43718
Forum Reputation : 75
Join date : 2020-04-15

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 2:02 pm

One of the things in Cullen's book says "What a waste, especially for Dylan".

That's a paraphrase, but come the fuck on.
Back to top Go down
Screamingophelia
Other Crimes Moderator & Top 10 Contributor
Screamingophelia


Posts : 6417
Contribution Points : 192899
Forum Reputation : 1317
Join date : 2017-08-25
Age : 42

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeWed Apr 22, 2020 5:53 pm

nopenever wrote:
TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

yes this is true.

I really don't think that bullying was the main motivation for the attack. It was mostly spite. On the basement tapes, they could have said a lot of things, and yet they didn't focus on bullying all that much, according to witnesses.

That said, Cullen is annoying and obviously wants to downplay Dylan's culpability.

As far as I know only a handful of people blame bullying for the shooting.

Most people think it was many factors and bullying and the culture is just a piece of the whole puzzle.

_________________
"And you know, you know, you know, this can be beautiful, you say you're numb inside, but I can't agree. So the world's unfair, keep it locked out there. In here it's beautiful."
Back to top Go down
Screamingophelia
Other Crimes Moderator & Top 10 Contributor
Screamingophelia


Posts : 6417
Contribution Points : 192899
Forum Reputation : 1317
Join date : 2017-08-25
Age : 42

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 11:10 am

nopenever wrote:
TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

yes this is true.

I really don't think that bullying was the main motivation for the attack. It was mostly spite. On the basement tapes, they could have said a lot of things, and yet they didn't focus on bullying all that much, according to witnesses.

That said, Cullen is annoying and obviously wants to downplay Dylan's culpability.


Sometimes I feel like the reason behind them not mentioning bullying on the BT are so they can appear a certain way. They don't want to appear week, they WANT to appear dangerous and they want to start this revolution of angry people causing destruction. They want to be "bad ass" so no... they are not going to brew some tea and start crying about being bullied and give each other a big hug...

_________________
"And you know, you know, you know, this can be beautiful, you say you're numb inside, but I can't agree. So the world's unfair, keep it locked out there. In here it's beautiful."
Back to top Go down
nopenever




Posts : 90
Contribution Points : 43718
Forum Reputation : 75
Join date : 2020-04-15

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 11:19 am

Screamingophelia wrote:
nopenever wrote:
TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

yes this is true.

I really don't think that bullying was the main motivation for the attack. It was mostly spite. On the basement tapes, they could have said a lot of things, and yet they didn't focus on bullying all that much, according to witnesses.

That said, Cullen is annoying and obviously wants to downplay Dylan's culpability.


Sometimes I feel like the reason behind them not mentioning bullying on the BT are so they can appear a certain way. They don't want to appear week, they WANT to appear dangerous and they want to start this revolution of angry people causing destruction. They want to be "bad ass" so no... they are not going to brew some tea and start crying about being bullied and give each other a big hug...

They say this about the diaries too. I dunno, there are ways to complain about bullying while appearing badass.

I think Eric drops the mask in his journal with the "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things."

I guess I lived in a post Columbine world where schools in America had anti-bullying programs though. I probably would have found more grief if I wanted to be accepted like Eric wanted to be accepted.

I guess I really don't know what it would be like to be bullied all the time in high school.
Back to top Go down
Screamingophelia
Other Crimes Moderator & Top 10 Contributor
Screamingophelia


Posts : 6417
Contribution Points : 192899
Forum Reputation : 1317
Join date : 2017-08-25
Age : 42

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 11:25 am

nopenever wrote:
Screamingophelia wrote:
nopenever wrote:
TigerKing357 wrote:
columbiners don't like him because he downplays the bullying factor, which is what they use to justify or excuse their actions.

yes this is true.

I really don't think that bullying was the main motivation for the attack. It was mostly spite. On the basement tapes, they could have said a lot of things, and yet they didn't focus on bullying all that much, according to witnesses.

That said, Cullen is annoying and obviously wants to downplay Dylan's culpability.


Sometimes I feel like the reason behind them not mentioning bullying on the BT are so they can appear a certain way. They don't want to appear week, they WANT to appear dangerous and they want to start this revolution of angry people causing destruction. They want to be "bad ass" so no... they are not going to brew some tea and start crying about being bullied and give each other a big hug...

They say this about the diaries too. I dunno, there are ways to complain about bullying while appearing badass.

I think Eric drops the mask in his journal with the "I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things."

I guess I lived in a post Columbine world where schools in America had anti-bullying programs though. I probably would have found more grief if I wanted to be accepted like Eric wanted to be accepted.

I guess I really don't know what it would be like to be bullied all the time in high school.


It's pretty awful, I was bullied non stop through middle school and HS, sometimes it annoys me because Eric and Dylan had more friends than I did... but I could understand the anger build up. I still to this day have an issue with trust and I am quick to get annoyed at any perceived slight. I'm working on it though Smile but I have to work on it and it comes from all the bullying.

_________________
"And you know, you know, you know, this can be beautiful, you say you're numb inside, but I can't agree. So the world's unfair, keep it locked out there. In here it's beautiful."
Back to top Go down
QuestionMark
Top 10 Contributor
QuestionMark


Posts : 4349
Contribution Points : 119628
Forum Reputation : 3191
Join date : 2017-09-04

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 12:13 pm

Screamingophelia wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the reason behind them not mentioning bullying on the BT are so they can appear a certain way.

Wait, that's not entirely true. The transcripts we've been provided with indicates they did mention bullying in their tapes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :
Eric then complains about his father and how his family had to move five times. He says he always had to be the new kid in school, and was always at the bottom of the “food chain,” and had no chance to earn any respect from his peers as he always had to “start out at the bottom of the ladder.” He hated the way people made fun of him: “my face, my hair, my shirts.”

[...]

Dylan then recalls how popular and athletic his older brother Byron was and how he constantly “ripped” on him, as did his brother’s friends.

[...]

They also mention enemies that abused them and friends who didn’t do enough to defend them.

_________________
"My guns are the only things that haven't stabbed me in the back."
-Kip Kinkel
Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 12:36 pm

More like Dylan never mentions bullying once in his private journal, but only with Eric on the Basement Tapes. 

TigerKing is exactly right, and to say bullying is not the most popular take, especially for those who were either before or ignore Cullen's take, is just wrong. I cringe at both.  Brooks Brown's book is bullying as motive just as Cullen's is mental illness, and existed long before.

Cullen also saw his task as separating Eric and Dylan. To have a different motive for each. To make it "Eric" and "Dylan" not "Eric and Dylan". His particular way of doing this is often disliked, and it probably suffers from being the first attempt. He also imposes this theory on any gaps in the story rather than just having a gap in the story or trying to actually solve the problem of the gap. The exact same thing people who buy into the bullying narrative do. 

Eric fetching Dylan to come to the stairs because Dylan was scared to go through it is just made up.  Their running out of adrenaline or feeling remorse or Eric's nose ruining the massacre is similarly just made up. Both are buying into "both bombs failed at 11:17 then they went to the stairs" and then just filling the gaps in the story that myth creates with their own biases. 

The same for saying they didn't mention bullying to appear badass. Hell, then I might as well argue that the motive was because they hated Kentucky Fried Chicken or whatever but never mentioned it because it wasn't badass enough. And if after I said that you found out I have a personal problem with KFC, I think you would know what was going on.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 1:47 pm

Its obvious that Eric didnt have any other motive than hes own anti- social behaviour and worldview, just by reading anything allready put out there. I agree, however, that Dylans motive is a bit harder to comprehend. I know that they have adressed the subject of murder- suicides in relation to this.

As for the whole bullying stuff, its complicated, because some experts argue that they werent bullied. Yet, this is both supported and dismissed by the people that interacted with them. I dont think Cullens argument is entirely unfounded, but you can also find statements that supports views to the contrary. Nevertheless, it blatantly obvious that bullying wasnt the reason for why it happened.

It's possible that it may have been the case for Dylan, but for Eric, it very clearly wasnt.
Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeThu Apr 23, 2020 10:44 pm

Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 24, 2020 1:09 am

cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through.
Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 24, 2020 4:56 am

Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 24, 2020 5:39 am

cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 24, 2020 5:47 am

And, also, Frank Ochbergs take on Columbine, school shootings and bullying, here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

'Bullying and revenge

We have too many bullies and too many youngsters at the mercy of bullies. But we also have a growing system of anti-bullying school programs. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Columbine killers were not bullied. There is no evidence that America, compared to other nations, has more bullies, more bullying, more victimization, and more victims who are ticking time bombs, hatching plots of lethal vengeance. However, we certainly can and should promote school programs that protect all children from stalking, hazing, and the new, evolving forms of abuse: Ostracism and humiliation through electronic social networks'

And Nate Dykemans interview:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeFri Apr 24, 2020 2:42 pm

Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 12:56 am

cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.


Its on page 9 in the report.

'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine high school assault, were above average, if not gifted students at Columbine. They were characterized as bullies and had been bullied themselves. Columbine, like most schools, had a problem with bullies preying on the weaker students. There was testimony that athletes were granted favored status'.

As for the 11k report, I agree, as I found some very questionable statements, myself. I think that Peter Langmann placed a q in some of the statements in order to point out that they are questionable..

I found some questionable sources in the final Columbine report, as well(That they were part of the TCM, for example. Which is far from the truth).

Back to top Go down
W.A.R.




Posts : 582
Contribution Points : 69573
Forum Reputation : 345
Join date : 2017-03-11

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 6:41 am

Its not just the psychopath/depressive thing, his characterizations of them are wrong in general. I don't see how anyone with knowledge outside of Cullen's book can read chapter 2 "Rebels" and continue to take the book serious.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 7:23 am

I, in fact, enjoyed the book quite a bit. I realize it probably have some holes in it, but, so does any book about Columbine Ive researched.

The psychopath and depressive- narrative is pretty accurate.

The leader/ follower- narrative: IMO, Im uncertain, as there are different statements in this regard, but it sounds reasonable. Friends of Eric and Dylan said the same thing. And Pshycologist Peter Langmann have made the same analogy, if I remember correctly. Whats been argued is that Dylan wanted to committ suicide. In that process hes dependant on Harris to do it. Now, Ive seen Kate Battan argue otherwise, so have Jeff Kass. Therefore, we have different views. Given that Peter Langmann have argued that in cases where you have two shooters, theres a leader and a follower, I dont think the perspective is far fetched.

Bullying: I think this is debated over and over. I have some major issues with this one. True, they werent outcasts, like they were portrayed. They werent goths, either; thats just downright untrue. And, no, they werent part of the TCM or out to target bullies. Yet, Ive seen some statements which verifies that they were bullied. Namely, Nate Dykeman and a number of other close friends. Even the Governors Bill Owens report confirms this. Yet, its also been dismissed by prof Frank Ochberg, a leading expert in the case, that they were bullied. For me, this is an indication that more information is needed to get a clearer perspective.

Erics dates: I havent dug hard enough into it. My main focus has been around the psychology of the two shooters and the bullying aspects around it. From what I know, he dated, but he experienced a number of dissapointments. For instance, he is supposed to have faked a suicide when a girl turned him down.
Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 1:25 pm

Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.


Its on page 9 in the report.

'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine high school assault, were above average, if not gifted students at Columbine. They were characterized as bullies and had been bullied themselves. Columbine, like most schools, had a problem with bullies preying on the weaker students. There was testimony that athletes were granted favored status'.

As for the 11k report, I agree, as I found some very questionable statements, myself. I think that Peter Langmann placed a q in some of the statements in order to point out that they are questionable..

I found some questionable sources in the final Columbine report, as well(That they were part of the TCM, for example. Which is far from the truth).

I said I was aware of the governor's report. It says they left the cafeteria bombs at the exits, while in the real world they left them inside near the pillars, and gives the whole false narrative about the bombs failing and shooting from the parking lot. It's hardly a reliable source.
Back to top Go down
Norwegian
Top 10 Contributor



Posts : 1143
Contribution Points : 78103
Forum Reputation : 304
Join date : 2018-12-06

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 1:38 pm

cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.


Its on page 9 in the report.

'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine high school assault, were above average, if not gifted students at Columbine. They were characterized as bullies and had been bullied themselves. Columbine, like most schools, had a problem with bullies preying on the weaker students. There was testimony that athletes were granted favored status'.

As for the 11k report, I agree, as I found some very questionable statements, myself. I think that Peter Langmann placed a q in some of the statements in order to point out that they are questionable..

I found some questionable sources in the final Columbine report, as well(That they were part of the TCM, for example. Which is far from the truth).

I said I was aware of the governor's report. It says they left the cafeteria bombs at the exits, while in the real world they left them inside near the pillars, and gives the whole false narrative about the bombs failing and shooting from the parking lot. It's hardly a reliable source.

Well, if you are going to dismiss a source, because they have a few holes in it, than I would assume you run out of sources to look at. I dont think it's an argument to dismiss entire sources, because some information might be inaccurate. One just have to keep in mind that certain accounts might be inaccurate. Hell, even prominent experts uses the official reports and documents in order to understand Columbine.

You got any other sources we can use 🙂?
Back to top Go down
cakeman

cakeman


Posts : 794
Contribution Points : 79172
Forum Reputation : 1491
Join date : 2018-07-27

I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitimeSat Apr 25, 2020 9:18 pm

Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Norwegian wrote:
cakeman wrote:
Think the opposite is the case. Eric's smaller and the new kid, and only he mentions bullying in his private journal. Though it's true he talks more about  e. g. natural selection.  Think it's possible bullying is part of Eric's, though if so probably the opposite of what people think (that bullying is good, it's natural selection)

I won't say it's impossible but if idk I could ask him and he had to be honest or something, I would be surprised if Dylan said his motive had to do with bullying.

My opinion of Dylan is that hes complicated. I battled severe depression for about a year and I wanted to die. I therefore feel a sense of empathy for Dylan. Yet, I also get the impression that what causes depression can be difficult. Clearly, bullying, sexual abuse, or other setbacks in life can probably have an impact, allthough, Im not really sure what caused Dylan to become so depressed and suicidal. Whatever it was, theres no denying that it's severely painful to go through. 
I share the interest in the depression issue. However, that bullying or anything else can lead to depression doesn't mean it did in his case. In his journal he's pretty clear his depression is tfw no gf. He never mentions bullying. He never shuts up about unrequited love. Even when he mentions hating jocks, it's about their having girlfriends, not bullying him. 

The 'revenge for bullying' myth is a product of the first two days of media coverage not having the cafeteria bombs, so they had to explain the murders as personal, rather than about the victims location. Thus it became targeting jocks (or bullies), blacks, and Christians.

Thats a fair point, and I agree that it's not about Revenge against bullying. What has got me into question, though, is the 11k documents themselves, aswell as expert Frank Ochbergs argument that they were not bullied, yet, also the Governor Bill Owens Columbine report. The Columbine report argues that they were both bullied and bullies themselves. Whereas Ochberg argues that they were not. And than there are withness testimonies which supports and dismisses the narrative at the same time. Mainly Chad Laughlin, Brooks Brown, Nate Dykeman and inside the 11K documents.

Sources:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 11 k documents which you can find here(they are also organized by theme), as well as Bill Owens' Columbine report

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I'm aware of the governor's report. It states they put the main cafeteria bombs at the exits, for how flawed it is. Also of course aware of some people saying they were bullied in the 11k. Many other things are in there. There are witnesses who say they had masks on in the library and many other things we are confident didn't happen.  And I don't put a lot of weight in what's said after the massacre as I do their actions during and what was said before. 

Was there not a rumor mill in a high school? Were they not searching for explanations to cope? Would some lie for attention? Do you think the media didn't affect their testimony? 

Both Eric and Nate considered Brooks a liar. Epling and Morris are probably the most interesting on the bullying aspect for my money, and even them I wonder.  Evan Todd says they were Satan worshiping homosexuals, should we believe him, or was he just angry after the massacre? Shouldn't they have been either angry or sad? Is that when one has a cool head to analyze such things as why their friends were murderers?

Also, to reiterate, I don't dispute that bullying may have played a part in Eric's motive. He does mention it. So, in that respect it would not be inconsistent with the testimony. However, even in his case, he's on about natural selection, and about how he hates freshmen, and how it's human nature to pick on other people.  In other words, if it's about bullying for Eric, it's not about "we need anti bullying campaigns", as what happened and is the usual perspective, but "anti bullying is anti life".  It's his turn to pick on the underclassmen. Perhaps that's what the governor's report wishes it said.

I would dispute that bullying had anything to do with Dylan's motive though. That doesn't seem right. And he was first to mention going on a killing spree.

Also, note, after the bombs were made public is when there was the Time magazine and the media released by police asking "Why", but it was about bullying in the first few days after.


Its on page 9 in the report.

'Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine high school assault, were above average, if not gifted students at Columbine. They were characterized as bullies and had been bullied themselves. Columbine, like most schools, had a problem with bullies preying on the weaker students. There was testimony that athletes were granted favored status'.

As for the 11k report, I agree, as I found some very questionable statements, myself. I think that Peter Langmann placed a q in some of the statements in order to point out that they are questionable..

I found some questionable sources in the final Columbine report, as well(That they were part of the TCM, for example. Which is far from the truth).

I said I was aware of the governor's report. It says they left the cafeteria bombs at the exits, while in the real world they left them inside near the pillars, and gives the whole false narrative about the bombs failing and shooting from the parking lot. It's hardly a reliable source.

Well, if you are going to dismiss a source, because they have a few holes in it, than I would assume you run out of sources to look at. I dont think it's an argument to dismiss entire sources, because some information might be inaccurate. One just have to keep in mind that certain accounts might be inaccurate. Hell, even prominent experts uses the official reports and documents in order to understand Columbine.

You got any other sources we can use 🙂?
I don't dismiss it; it shows how careful the governor's report were with their sources. And yeah, their journals.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content





I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Empty
PostSubject: Re: I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.   I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here. Icon_minitime

Back to top Go down
 
I really don't understand the big deal about Cullen here.
Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» [Q&A] KMFDM's Sascha Konietzko on art, Columbine and having balls - Published Mar 18 2013 by Daniel Brockman
» "dont...done enough?"
» "Dont...Done Enough?"
» Dont you find the Columbine- topic irritatingly sensationalist?
» Do you "understand why they did it"?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum :: Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum :: Thoughts on the Shooting-
Jump to: