Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was not bullied, they actually jockers!

I think you dont want to understand of what I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your above comment. That's right that Browns' family are liars and attention whores. I also fully agree that they weren't "worst losers that ever existed" and had a lots of friends. But there are at least two things that people like you usually skipping:

1. We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did. But his motivation was clearly a desire to be perceived as a defender of "Weak and Innocent people" bullied by consumerists. Of course, this was also related with his psychotic mental illnesses (he wasn't bullied at VTech, only at high school when he was younger). Similar with E&D. They were shooting at random people, but this did not exclude the bullying motivation (read below).

2. There are many visible clues on why the bullying was one of main factors. First: They chose the school as a place of the attack. It can be motivated both by their desire to maximize the media attention, and because that was place they both know very well (like most of active shooter's do). But I can't agree with people who like to think that the school was targeted only because these two factors (attention and strategy to get many kills). It was chosed because they clearly hating students community at school. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't say they hate ENTIRE school community (Eric even said he like the school), but the large part of school's student community. As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library. Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact. Third: The sociological context. In 90s there were a lot of cases that gained media attention when students were bullied (especially those "weird-looking", "nerds", "goths" etc.) to death by stereotypical athletic bullies across the US and the world. This problem was usually ignored by various school districts and the society. Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution. They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games - these things were ostracized by most of society (especially popular kids and jocks) at this time. Even if they weren't a stereotypical outcasts (depressed nerds without friends etc.), they still clearly showed a fascination with it. Someone's idea of starting the "school outcasts revolution" at this time could be understandable as a motive. Expected results of a "terrorist attack in which the perpetrators are stylized as a stereotypical outcasts from 90s with dark trenches" would be the flood of copycats + fame for the original perpetrator(s) - exactly that's what E&D wanted. Many people don't see the difference between obvious lies about the shooting (TCM bullshit, Cassie, alleged targeting of jocks and Christians and other misinfo) and the fact that E&D still can be seen as the people who committed the attack not only due to their personal and mental problems, but did it also because they wanted to demonstrate their anger toward humanity, the school community, the people who mistreated them even though they weren't specifically targeted (see: first point) and ignite the revolution that could give them the status of "immortal historical figures".

3. Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)

I have been on this topic for many years and I personally see the shooting as an act committed by two mentally unstable edgy teenagers with different personalities who were trying to get a fame, start a "revolution" and, finally, take a revenge against the school that apparently symbolized the things that they hated. They both were bullied by jocks in CHS. Their friendships with other peers has often become unstable (Eric-Brooks conflict, Dylan lamenting about his best friend leaving him etc.). They have been romantically rejected by girls who were CHS students. They clearly intended to took irrational revenge against the school. However, instead of taking revenge on specific people, they shoot innocent people. That's a significant factor of personality disorders - blaming the entire humanity. In conclusion - their violent intentions had been growing for many years and culminated in the moment when they have began a serious problems in relations with their peers. That's my opinion.

xDarkRazoR wrote:

I think you dont want to understand of what I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your above comment. That's right that Browns' family are liars and attention whores. I also fully agree that they weren't "worst losers that ever existed" and had a lots of friends. But there are at least two things that people like you usually skipping:

1. We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did. But his motivation was clearly a desire to be perceived as a defender of "Weak and Innocent people" bullied by consumerists. Of course, this was also related with his psychotic mental illnesses (he wasn't bullied at VTech, only at high school when he was younger). Similar with E&D. They were shooting at random people, but this did not exclude the bullying motivation (read below).

2. There are many visible clues on why the bullying was one of main factors. First: They chose the school as a place of the attack. It can be motivated both by their desire to maximize the media attention, and because that was place they both know very well (like most of active shooter's do). But I can't agree with people who like to think that the school was targeted only because these two factors (attention and strategy to get many kills). It was chosed because they clearly hating students community at school. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't say they hate ENTIRE school community (Eric even said he like the school), but the large part of school's student community. As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library. Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact. Third: The sociological context. In 90s there were a lot of cases that gained media attention when students were bullied (especially those "weird-looking", "nerds", "goths" etc.) to death by stereotypical athletic bullies across the US and the world. This problem was usually ignored by various school districts and the society. Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution. They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games - these things were ostracized by most of society (especially popular kids and jocks) at this time. Even if they weren't a stereotypical outcasts (depressed nerds without friends etc.), they still clearly showed a fascination with it. Someone's idea of starting the "school outcasts revolution" at this time could be understandable as a motive. Expected results of a "terrorist attack in which the perpetrators are stylized as a stereotypical outcasts from 90s with dark trenches" would be the flood of copycats + fame for the original perpetrator(s) - exactly that's what E&D wanted. Many people don't see the difference between obvious lies about the shooting (TCM bullshit, Cassie, alleged targeting of jocks and Christians and other misinfo) and the fact that E&D still can be seen as the people who committed the attack not only due to their personal and mental problems, but did it also because they wanted to demonstrate their anger toward humanity, the school community, the people who mistreated them even though they weren't specifically targeted (see: first point) and ignite the revolution that could give them the status of "immortal historical figures".

3. Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)

I have been on this topic for many years and I personally see the shooting as an act committed by two mentally unstable edgy teenagers with different personalities who were trying to get a fame, start a "revolution" and, finally, take a revenge against the school that apparently symbolized the things that they hated. They both were bullied by jocks in CHS. Their friendships with other peers has often become unstable (Eric-Brooks conflict, Dylan lamenting about his best friend leaving him etc.). They have been romantically rejected by girls who were CHS students. They clearly intended to took irrational revenge against the school. However, instead of taking revenge on specific people, they shoot innocent people. That's a significant factor of personality disorders - blaming the entire humanity. In conclusion - their violent intentions had been growing for many years and culminated in the moment when they have began a serious problems in relations with their peers. That's my opinion.

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. You tried to claim that it was due to his "edgy Reb persona" and were proven wrong by the fact that he admits deeply-held embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in his diary multiple times. Contrast this to other diaries by shooters like Breivik who did no such thing and portrayed himself as an uber mensch.  E's diaries also contain his true feelings and thoughts, it isn't all 'masculine badass' persona.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



> First: They chose the school as a place of the attack.

That doesn't mean it was retaliation for harassment, as generally speaking, most mass shooters (not all) target locations that they're familiar with. Did Eric target the school because of harassment? Or because he wanted to commit mass murder (his other plans for other potential attacks in his diaries including placing bombs around Denver or crashing planes in NYC buildings a la 9/11-style amongst other things), and because he was familiar with the school and it provided an ample amount of people to mass murder? They could've easily targeted the locker room where the jocks congregated, or when they went out to practice on the field. Nobody was a specific target, they admit this multiple times.

>As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library.

Dylan said this on the tapes, not during the attack (feel free to correct me if im wrong): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem with this is that in subsequent tapes they stated that nobody at the school, friends, or parents were to blame for the attack and that nobody is at fault. They consistently contradicted themselves in their tapes, because the 'justifications' they gave were not meaningful ones or the true reason behind the attack. See citation above.


>Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact.

I never once stated that they didn't experience any harassment at the school, nor did Langman. Cullen might've said so but I didn't cite Cullen once, so please stop attacking strawmen.
Most of the students at CHS experienced some form of harassment by Rocky and the jocks at some point, but that doesn't mean that it was the cause of the attack. Upwards of 60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying during their school years. How many of them become mass shooters? Virtually none (virtually is not the same all). School shootings by occurrence are actually rare events when looked at from an absolute statistical perspectives. You can't point to something that's very common as the cause of something that is quite rare statistically speaking: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

>They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games

I agree that they perceived themselves as 'outcasts'. That however doesn't mean they were by definition when other close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler state they weren't.


>Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution.

Why not look at Eric's diary again where gives twelve reasons as to why he should be able to commit mass murder when he wants on page 5 of the Langman paper: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of all the reasons listed, only one is about revenge against harassment. Every other reason specified is because of his callousness, contempt, and narcissism for others which are hallmarks of ASPD or sociopathy.

>Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)


Dylan only mentioned himself being involved in that incident. I agree that it occurred as his mother states she saw him with a ketchup-stained shirt in her memoir. Laughlin stated it only involved Dylan. It was Brooks who stated it involved both Eric and Dylan and that it was committed in front of multiple teachers and the entire school (which is sus as nobody else besides Laughlin or Brooks stated it occurred in any of the thousands of interviews with students, and teachers at the school that the FBI conducted in the 11k). Also interesting is that Dylan never brings up bullying even once in his diary.

Dylan's gives the following justification for his attack: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I quote: "Ahhhh, my favorite book. We, the gods, will have so much fun with NBK!! Killing enemies,
blowing up stuff, killing cops!! My wrath for January’s incident20 will be godlike. Not to
mention our revenge in the commons. GAWWWD sooo many people need to die. & now,
a fun look at the past: (science-desk style) ((You know what I hate??? PEOPLE!! YEAA!!))"

The January incident refers to the van break-in and arrest, whilst 'revenge in the commons' refers to the ketchup incident which occurred in the cafeteria (commons). He attaches secondary importance to it hence he says "not to mention". The primary 'justification' he gives for the attack in his diary is due to the van incident and arrest.


For everything else you've stated further on: I've already addressed and repeated multiple times so I'm not going to bother because it's tiring. This is a good thread where Sabratha (who studied psychology in school) makes the same points I have made and addresses arguments to the contrary: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Zortha wrote:

xDarkRazoR wrote:

I think you dont want to understand of what I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your above comment. That's right that Browns' family are liars and attention whores. I also fully agree that they weren't "worst losers that ever existed" and had a lots of friends. But there are at least two things that people like you usually skipping:

1. We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did. But his motivation was clearly a desire to be perceived as a defender of "Weak and Innocent people" bullied by consumerists. Of course, this was also related with his psychotic mental illnesses (he wasn't bullied at VTech, only at high school when he was younger). Similar with E&D. They were shooting at random people, but this did not exclude the bullying motivation (read below).

2. There are many visible clues on why the bullying was one of main factors. First: They chose the school as a place of the attack. It can be motivated both by their desire to maximize the media attention, and because that was place they both know very well (like most of active shooter's do). But I can't agree with people who like to think that the school was targeted only because these two factors (attention and strategy to get many kills). It was chosed because they clearly hating students community at school. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't say they hate ENTIRE school community (Eric even said he like the school), but the large part of school's student community. As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library. Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact. Third: The sociological context. In 90s there were a lot of cases that gained media attention when students were bullied (especially those "weird-looking", "nerds", "goths" etc.) to death by stereotypical athletic bullies across the US and the world. This problem was usually ignored by various school districts and the society. Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution. They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games - these things were ostracized by most of society (especially popular kids and jocks) at this time. Even if they weren't a stereotypical outcasts (depressed nerds without friends etc.), they still clearly showed a fascination with it. Someone's idea of starting the "school outcasts revolution" at this time could be understandable as a motive. Expected results of a "terrorist attack in which the perpetrators are stylized as a stereotypical outcasts from 90s with dark trenches" would be the flood of copycats + fame for the original perpetrator(s) - exactly that's what E&D wanted. Many people don't see the difference between obvious lies about the shooting (TCM bullshit, Cassie, alleged targeting of jocks and Christians and other misinfo) and the fact that E&D still can be seen as the people who committed the attack not only due to their personal and mental problems, but did it also because they wanted to demonstrate their anger toward humanity, the school community, the people who mistreated them even though they weren't specifically targeted (see: first point) and ignite the revolution that could give them the status of "immortal historical figures".

3. Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)

I have been on this topic for many years and I personally see the shooting as an act committed by two mentally unstable edgy teenagers with different personalities who were trying to get a fame, start a "revolution" and, finally, take a revenge against the school that apparently symbolized the things that they hated. They both were bullied by jocks in CHS. Their friendships with other peers has often become unstable (Eric-Brooks conflict, Dylan lamenting about his best friend leaving him etc.). They have been romantically rejected by girls who were CHS students. They clearly intended to took irrational revenge against the school. However, instead of taking revenge on specific people, they shoot innocent people. That's a significant factor of personality disorders - blaming the entire humanity. In conclusion - their violent intentions had been growing for many years and culminated in the moment when they have began a serious problems in relations with their peers. That's my opinion.

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. You tried to claim that it was due to his "edgy Reb persona" and were proven wrong by the fact that he admits deeply-held embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in his diary multiple times. Contrast this to other diaries by shooters like Breivik who did no such thing and portrayed himself as an uber mensch.  E's diaries also contain his true feelings and thoughts, it isn't all 'masculine badass' persona.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



> First: They chose the school as a place of the attack.

That doesn't mean it was retaliation for harassment, as generally speaking, most mass shooters (not all) target locations that they're familiar with. Did Eric target the school because of harassment? Or because he wanted to commit mass murder (his other plans for other potential attacks in his diaries including placing bombs around Denver or crashing planes in NYC buildings a la 9/11-style amongst other things), and because he was familiar with the school and it provided an ample amount of people to mass murder? They could've easily targeted the locker room where the jocks congregated, or when they went out to practice on the field. Nobody was a specific target, they admit this multiple times.

>As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library.

Dylan said this on the tapes, not during the attack (feel free to correct me if im wrong): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem with this is that in subsequent tapes they stated that nobody at the school, friends, or parents were to blame for the attack and that nobody is at fault. They consistently contradicted themselves in their tapes, because the 'justifications' they gave were not meaningful ones or the true reason behind the attack. See citation above.


>Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact.

I never once stated that they didn't experience any harassment at the school, nor did Langman. Cullen might've said so but I didn't cite Cullen once, so please stop attacking strawmen.
Most of the students at CHS experienced some form of harassment by Rocky and the jocks at some point, but that doesn't mean that it was the cause of the attack. Upwards of 60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying during their school years. How many of them become mass shooters? Virtually none (virtually is not the same all). School shootings by occurrence are actually rare events when looked at from an absolute statistical perspectives. You can't point to something that's very common as the cause of something that is quite rare statistically speaking: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

>They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games

I agree that they perceived themselves as 'outcasts'. That however doesn't mean they were by definition when other close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler state they weren't.


>Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution.

Why not look at Eric's diary again where gives twelve reasons as to why he should be able to commit mass murder when he wants on page 5 of the Langman paper: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of all the reasons listed, only one is about revenge against harassment. Every other reason specified is because of his callousness, contempt, and narcissism for others which are hallmarks of ASPD or sociopathy.

>Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)


Dylan only mentioned himself being involved in that incident. I agree that it occurred as his mother states she saw him with a ketchup-stained shirt in her memoir. Laughlin stated it only involved Dylan. It was Brooks who stated it involved both Eric and Dylan and that it was committed in front of multiple teachers and the entire school (which is sus as nobody else besides Laughlin or Brooks stated it occurred in any of the thousands of interviews with students, and teachers at the school that the FBI conducted in the 11k). Also interesting is that Dylan never brings up bullying even once in his diary.

Dylan's gives the following justification for his attack: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I quote: "Ahhhh, my favorite book. We, the gods, will have so much fun with NBK!! Killing enemies,
blowing up stuff, killing cops!! My wrath for January’s incident20 will be godlike. Not to
mention our revenge in the commons. GAWWWD sooo many people need to die. & now,
a fun look at the past: (science-desk style) ((You know what I hate??? PEOPLE!! YEAA!!))"

The January incident refers to the van break-in and arrest, whilst 'revenge in the commons' refers to the ketchup incident which occurred in the cafeteria (commons). He attaches secondary importance to it hence he says "not to mention". The primary 'justification' he gives for the attack in his diary is due to the van incident and arrest.


For everything else you've stated further on: I've already addressed and repeated multiple times so I'm not going to bother because it's tiring. This is a good thread where Sabratha (who studied psychology in school) makes the same points I have made and addresses arguments to the contrary: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm tired too. You also repeated points I already answered as if you didn't want to understand of what I was saying. All the matters you wrote above were answered by me in my previous comments to you. You are still repeating the same things about Eric's personality and trying to say that I think they were motivated only by a bullying. No, I don't think they were motivated only by bullying, but also by multiple other factors, I wrote about it in that comment above. In a nutshell: I see their attack - in sociological context - as an act of "rebellion" against all the things they hated. You are right about many things and I can agree on almost everything you wrote above, with few exceptions. But I think you're dont trying understand my stance on their motives in fundamental matters, skipping that sociological facet.

Where did I try to say that "all bullying victims are the school shooters"? You suggested this, but I didn't say anything like that. You seem to confusing the opinions like mine about bullying's real impact on shooter's behavior and their aggressive intentions with nonsensical opinions of dumb people who are trying to say that "all bullying victims are wannabe shooters". I didn't say anything like that.

"Revenge in the commons" just means the bombs in the commons to get the most victims. It would take work to show it meant "for the ketchup incident." He doesn't say it's for a specific event like he does for January.

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Zortha wrote:

xDarkRazoR wrote:

I think you dont want to understand of what I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your above comment. That's right that Browns' family are liars and attention whores. I also fully agree that they weren't "worst losers that ever existed" and had a lots of friends. But there are at least two things that people like you usually skipping:

1. We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did. But his motivation was clearly a desire to be perceived as a defender of "Weak and Innocent people" bullied by consumerists. Of course, this was also related with his psychotic mental illnesses (he wasn't bullied at VTech, only at high school when he was younger). Similar with E&D. They were shooting at random people, but this did not exclude the bullying motivation (read below).

2. There are many visible clues on why the bullying was one of main factors. First: They chose the school as a place of the attack. It can be motivated both by their desire to maximize the media attention, and because that was place they both know very well (like most of active shooter's do). But I can't agree with people who like to think that the school was targeted only because these two factors (attention and strategy to get many kills). It was chosed because they clearly hating students community at school. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't say they hate ENTIRE school community (Eric even said he like the school), but the large part of school's student community. As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library. Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact. Third: The sociological context. In 90s there were a lot of cases that gained media attention when students were bullied (especially those "weird-looking", "nerds", "goths" etc.) to death by stereotypical athletic bullies across the US and the world. This problem was usually ignored by various school districts and the society. Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution. They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games - these things were ostracized by most of society (especially popular kids and jocks) at this time. Even if they weren't a stereotypical outcasts (depressed nerds without friends etc.), they still clearly showed a fascination with it. Someone's idea of starting the "school outcasts revolution" at this time could be understandable as a motive. Expected results of a "terrorist attack in which the perpetrators are stylized as a stereotypical outcasts from 90s with dark trenches" would be the flood of copycats + fame for the original perpetrator(s) - exactly that's what E&D wanted. Many people don't see the difference between obvious lies about the shooting (TCM bullshit, Cassie, alleged targeting of jocks and Christians and other misinfo) and the fact that E&D still can be seen as the people who committed the attack not only due to their personal and mental problems, but did it also because they wanted to demonstrate their anger toward humanity, the school community, the people who mistreated them even though they weren't specifically targeted (see: first point) and ignite the revolution that could give them the status of "immortal historical figures".

3. Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)

I have been on this topic for many years and I personally see the shooting as an act committed by two mentally unstable edgy teenagers with different personalities who were trying to get a fame, start a "revolution" and, finally, take a revenge against the school that apparently symbolized the things that they hated. They both were bullied by jocks in CHS. Their friendships with other peers has often become unstable (Eric-Brooks conflict, Dylan lamenting about his best friend leaving him etc.). They have been romantically rejected by girls who were CHS students. They clearly intended to took irrational revenge against the school. However, instead of taking revenge on specific people, they shoot innocent people. That's a significant factor of personality disorders - blaming the entire humanity. In conclusion - their violent intentions had been growing for many years and culminated in the moment when they have began a serious problems in relations with their peers. That's my opinion.

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. You tried to claim that it was due to his "edgy Reb persona" and were proven wrong by the fact that he admits deeply-held embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in his diary multiple times. Contrast this to other diaries by shooters like Breivik who did no such thing and portrayed himself as an uber mensch.  E's diaries also contain his true feelings and thoughts, it isn't all 'masculine badass' persona.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



> First: They chose the school as a place of the attack.

That doesn't mean it was retaliation for harassment, as generally speaking, most mass shooters (not all) target locations that they're familiar with. Did Eric target the school because of harassment? Or because he wanted to commit mass murder (his other plans for other potential attacks in his diaries including placing bombs around Denver or crashing planes in NYC buildings a la 9/11-style amongst other things), and because he was familiar with the school and it provided an ample amount of people to mass murder? They could've easily targeted the locker room where the jocks congregated, or when they went out to practice on the field. Nobody was a specific target, they admit this multiple times.

>As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library.

Dylan said this on the tapes, not during the attack (feel free to correct me if im wrong): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem with this is that in subsequent tapes they stated that nobody at the school, friends, or parents were to blame for the attack and that nobody is at fault. They consistently contradicted themselves in their tapes, because the 'justifications' they gave were not meaningful ones or the true reason behind the attack. See citation above.


>Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact.

I never once stated that they didn't experience any harassment at the school, nor did Langman. Cullen might've said so but I didn't cite Cullen once, so please stop attacking strawmen.
Most of the students at CHS experienced some form of harassment by Rocky and the jocks at some point, but that doesn't mean that it was the cause of the attack. Upwards of 60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying during their school years. How many of them become mass shooters? Virtually none (virtually is not the same all). School shootings by occurrence are actually rare events when looked at from an absolute statistical perspectives. You can't point to something that's very common as the cause of something that is quite rare statistically speaking: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

>They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games

I agree that they perceived themselves as 'outcasts'. That however doesn't mean they were by definition when other close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler state they weren't.


>Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution.

Why not look at Eric's diary again where gives twelve reasons as to why he should be able to commit mass murder when he wants on page 5 of the Langman paper: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of all the reasons listed, only one is about revenge against harassment. Every other reason specified is because of his callousness, contempt, and narcissism for others which are hallmarks of ASPD or sociopathy.

>Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)


Dylan only mentioned himself being involved in that incident. I agree that it occurred as his mother states she saw him with a ketchup-stained shirt in her memoir. Laughlin stated it only involved Dylan. It was Brooks who stated it involved both Eric and Dylan and that it was committed in front of multiple teachers and the entire school (which is sus as nobody else besides Laughlin or Brooks stated it occurred in any of the thousands of interviews with students, and teachers at the school that the FBI conducted in the 11k). Also interesting is that Dylan never brings up bullying even once in his diary.

Dylan's gives the following justification for his attack: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I quote: "Ahhhh, my favorite book. We, the gods, will have so much fun with NBK!! Killing enemies,
blowing up stuff, killing cops!! My wrath for January’s incident20 will be godlike. Not to
mention our revenge in the commons. GAWWWD sooo many people need to die. & now,
a fun look at the past: (science-desk style) ((You know what I hate??? PEOPLE!! YEAA!!))"

The January incident refers to the van break-in and arrest, whilst 'revenge in the commons' refers to the ketchup incident which occurred in the cafeteria (commons). He attaches secondary importance to it hence he says "not to mention". The primary 'justification' he gives for the attack in his diary is due to the van incident and arrest.


For everything else you've stated further on: I've already addressed and repeated multiple times so I'm not going to bother because it's tiring. This is a good thread where Sabratha (who studied psychology in school) makes the same points I have made and addresses arguments to the contrary: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm tired too. You also repeated points I already answered as if you didn't want to understand of what I was saying. All the matters you wrote above were answered by me in my previous comments to you. You are still repeating the same things about Eric's personality and trying to say that I think they were motivated only by a bullying. No, I don't think they were motivated only by bullying, but also by multiple other factors, I wrote about it in that comment above. In a nutshell: I see their attack - in sociological context - as an act of "rebellion" against all the things they hated. You are right about many things and I can agree on almost everything you wrote above, with few exceptions. But I think you're dont trying understand my stance on their motives in fundamental matters, skipping that sociological facet.

Where did I try to say that "all bullying victims are the school shooters"? You suggested this, but I didn't say anything like that. You seem to confusing the opinions like mine about bullying's real impact on shooter's behavior and their aggressive intentions with nonsensical opinions of dumb people who are trying to say that "all bullying victims are wannabe shooters". I didn't say anything like that.

Don't expect him to understand anything, he's Polish

supremegentlewoman1991 wrote:

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Zortha wrote:

xDarkRazoR wrote:

I think you dont want to understand of what I was trying to say.

I absolutely agree with you on the latter part of your above comment. That's right that Browns' family are liars and attention whores. I also fully agree that they weren't "worst losers that ever existed" and had a lots of friends. But there are at least two things that people like you usually skipping:

1. We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did. But his motivation was clearly a desire to be perceived as a defender of "Weak and Innocent people" bullied by consumerists. Of course, this was also related with his psychotic mental illnesses (he wasn't bullied at VTech, only at high school when he was younger). Similar with E&D. They were shooting at random people, but this did not exclude the bullying motivation (read below).

2. There are many visible clues on why the bullying was one of main factors. First: They chose the school as a place of the attack. It can be motivated both by their desire to maximize the media attention, and because that was place they both know very well (like most of active shooter's do). But I can't agree with people who like to think that the school was targeted only because these two factors (attention and strategy to get many kills). It was chosed because they clearly hating students community at school. Again, don't get me wrong. I don't say they hate ENTIRE school community (Eric even said he like the school), but the large part of school's student community. As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library. Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact. Third: The sociological context. In 90s there were a lot of cases that gained media attention when students were bullied (especially those "weird-looking", "nerds", "goths" etc.) to death by stereotypical athletic bullies across the US and the world. This problem was usually ignored by various school districts and the society. Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution. They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games - these things were ostracized by most of society (especially popular kids and jocks) at this time. Even if they weren't a stereotypical outcasts (depressed nerds without friends etc.), they still clearly showed a fascination with it. Someone's idea of starting the "school outcasts revolution" at this time could be understandable as a motive. Expected results of a "terrorist attack in which the perpetrators are stylized as a stereotypical outcasts from 90s with dark trenches" would be the flood of copycats + fame for the original perpetrator(s) - exactly that's what E&D wanted. Many people don't see the difference between obvious lies about the shooting (TCM bullshit, Cassie, alleged targeting of jocks and Christians and other misinfo) and the fact that E&D still can be seen as the people who committed the attack not only due to their personal and mental problems, but did it also because they wanted to demonstrate their anger toward humanity, the school community, the people who mistreated them even though they weren't specifically targeted (see: first point) and ignite the revolution that could give them the status of "immortal historical figures".

3. Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)

I have been on this topic for many years and I personally see the shooting as an act committed by two mentally unstable edgy teenagers with different personalities who were trying to get a fame, start a "revolution" and, finally, take a revenge against the school that apparently symbolized the things that they hated. They both were bullied by jocks in CHS. Their friendships with other peers has often become unstable (Eric-Brooks conflict, Dylan lamenting about his best friend leaving him etc.). They have been romantically rejected by girls who were CHS students. They clearly intended to took irrational revenge against the school. However, instead of taking revenge on specific people, they shoot innocent people. That's a significant factor of personality disorders - blaming the entire humanity. In conclusion - their violent intentions had been growing for many years and culminated in the moment when they have began a serious problems in relations with their peers. That's my opinion.

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. You tried to claim that it was due to his "edgy Reb persona" and were proven wrong by the fact that he admits deeply-held embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in his diary multiple times. Contrast this to other diaries by shooters like Breivik who did no such thing and portrayed himself as an uber mensch.  E's diaries also contain his true feelings and thoughts, it isn't all 'masculine badass' persona.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



> First: They chose the school as a place of the attack.

That doesn't mean it was retaliation for harassment, as generally speaking, most mass shooters (not all) target locations that they're familiar with. Did Eric target the school because of harassment? Or because he wanted to commit mass murder (his other plans for other potential attacks in his diaries including placing bombs around Denver or crashing planes in NYC buildings a la 9/11-style amongst other things), and because he was familiar with the school and it provided an ample amount of people to mass murder? They could've easily targeted the locker room where the jocks congregated, or when they went out to practice on the field. Nobody was a specific target, they admit this multiple times.

>As Dylan said "This is a revenge for all the shit you giving us!" as he and Eric went to library.

Dylan said this on the tapes, not during the attack (feel free to correct me if im wrong): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem with this is that in subsequent tapes they stated that nobody at the school, friends, or parents were to blame for the attack and that nobody is at fault. They consistently contradicted themselves in their tapes, because the 'justifications' they gave were not meaningful ones or the true reason behind the attack. See citation above.


>Second: Both Eric and Dylan were bullied by jocks and this is a confirmed fact, it doesn't matter whether bullying has been described by many students as "mild or average", because it's very subjective opinion - other students can perceived this as "mild", but we don't know how E&D felt. Ketchup incident, Eric pushed into lockers by jocks, roasts and insults, teasing about their look, jocks making fun of Eric's "pectus excavatum" etc. The bullying is just a confirmed fact.

I never once stated that they didn't experience any harassment at the school, nor did Langman. Cullen might've said so but I didn't cite Cullen once, so please stop attacking strawmen.
Most of the students at CHS experienced some form of harassment by Rocky and the jocks at some point, but that doesn't mean that it was the cause of the attack. Upwards of 60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying during their school years. How many of them become mass shooters? Virtually none (virtually is not the same all). School shootings by occurrence are actually rare events when looked at from an absolute statistical perspectives. You can't point to something that's very common as the cause of something that is quite rare statistically speaking: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

>They both clearly sympathized with a stereotypical portrait of "outcasts", they also listening the same music, liked computers, playing video games

I agree that they perceived themselves as 'outcasts'. That however doesn't mean they were by definition when other close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler state they weren't.


>Eric said about his fantasy of starting a revolution.

Why not look at Eric's diary again where gives twelve reasons as to why he should be able to commit mass murder when he wants on page 5 of the Langman paper: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of all the reasons listed, only one is about revenge against harassment. Every other reason specified is because of his callousness, contempt, and narcissism for others which are hallmarks of ASPD or sociopathy.

>Eric and Dylan cited bullying as a problem many times (Dylan telling his mother that day when he and Eric were sprayed with ketchup by jocks was the worst day in his life, again Dylan at least twice during the attack: when he went to library and during the dialogue with Evan Todd, Eric mentioned this in his journal a few times as you noticed etc.)


Dylan only mentioned himself being involved in that incident. I agree that it occurred as his mother states she saw him with a ketchup-stained shirt in her memoir. Laughlin stated it only involved Dylan. It was Brooks who stated it involved both Eric and Dylan and that it was committed in front of multiple teachers and the entire school (which is sus as nobody else besides Laughlin or Brooks stated it occurred in any of the thousands of interviews with students, and teachers at the school that the FBI conducted in the 11k). Also interesting is that Dylan never brings up bullying even once in his diary.

Dylan's gives the following justification for his attack: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I quote: "Ahhhh, my favorite book. We, the gods, will have so much fun with NBK!! Killing enemies,
blowing up stuff, killing cops!! My wrath for January’s incident20 will be godlike. Not to
mention our revenge in the commons. GAWWWD sooo many people need to die. & now,
a fun look at the past: (science-desk style) ((You know what I hate??? PEOPLE!! YEAA!!))"

The January incident refers to the van break-in and arrest, whilst 'revenge in the commons' refers to the ketchup incident which occurred in the cafeteria (commons). He attaches secondary importance to it hence he says "not to mention". The primary 'justification' he gives for the attack in his diary is due to the van incident and arrest.


For everything else you've stated further on: I've already addressed and repeated multiple times so I'm not going to bother because it's tiring. This is a good thread where Sabratha (who studied psychology in school) makes the same points I have made and addresses arguments to the contrary: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm tired too. You also repeated points I already answered as if you didn't want to understand of what I was saying. All the matters you wrote above were answered by me in my previous comments to you. You are still repeating the same things about Eric's personality and trying to say that I think they were motivated only by a bullying. No, I don't think they were motivated only by bullying, but also by multiple other factors, I wrote about it in that comment above. In a nutshell: I see their attack - in sociological context - as an act of "rebellion" against all the things they hated. You are right about many things and I can agree on almost everything you wrote above, with few exceptions. But I think you're dont trying understand my stance on their motives in fundamental matters, skipping that sociological facet.

Where did I try to say that "all bullying victims are the school shooters"? You suggested this, but I didn't say anything like that. You seem to confusing the opinions like mine about bullying's real impact on shooter's behavior and their aggressive intentions with nonsensical opinions of dumb people who are trying to say that "all bullying victims are wannabe shooters". I didn't say anything like that.

Don't expect him to understand anything, he's Polish

Rosie, do us a favor and cut off your internet cable

Hello transcendentalauracel331,

transcendentalauracel331 wrote:

The question is to what extent they were bullied

They were bullied to death: they both committed suicide, didn't they ?

transcendentalauracel331 wrote:

and how it could've inspired them to murder.

Any action produces a reaction in interpersonal relationships, and it's because of our high mimic capacities: we have special neurones called mirror neurones, that allow us to learn and also to reciprocates behaviors. You smile when somebody smilles as you, you panic when people are afraid around you, and you retaliate when somebody is violent and hit you.

Bullying is a particular sort of violence. Most violences occur as one vs one, they are duels, but sometimes, violence is all vs one, as in lynching, scapegoating, sacrifice, and bullying. Bullying is a school lynching or school sacrifice, from the very beginning its outcome is the death of the victim. All suicides of bullied are successful bullying.

The outcome of a duel is most often uncertain, in one vs one violence, opponents have to calculate their chances to win, and you can place bets. But the outcome of all vs one violence is known since the dawn of time : the one shred to pieces. The balance of power in all vs one leaves to hope to the one. You can't place bets, the outcome is certain: the all win, the one loses.

So among the multitude of the ones pushed to suicide, who politely commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, some take revenge. There is no inspiration here. Or we should ask how could Barbarossa have inspired Bagration... And no psychology, and no psychiatry, the issue is social, political, it is about violence in a society.

The society that pushed one of its members to suicide is violent, and violent to death, obviously. But, in the case of bullying, this is a society of kids, placed under the authority of adults - educators, principals, teachers... These adults bear the responsibility of ensuring peace and prohibiting violence. Educators, principals, teachers are accountable for any bullying, suicide, shooting happening in their schools and classrooms. It is their duty to protect each of the kids, not to forsake any one.

Violence is contagious, and why the one victim of all of us couldn't be violent ? We are all together pushing him to suicide, we give him unanimously the example, we are showing him the path, even educators who consent to the persecution, why should he be different from us ?

So the question is not " how it could've inspired them to murder?" but "why educators agree with pushing a kid to suicide?"

Charles

Hello xDarkRazoR

xDarkRazoR wrote:

We all know that their attack was random and they didn't targeting anyone specifically. But this did not exclude a bullying as a one of main factors (along with their mental state, anger caused by misunderstandings among their friends, romantic failures, fascination with destruction and desire to be famous, that whole "halcyon girl" thing etc.). For example: Seung-Hui Cho also didn't targeted bullies, but random students like E&D did.

Bullying was more than one of the main factor, it was the very main factor, the decisive one. And "random" here means "the whole" as in:

Quote :

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd. 

Bullying is a social phenomenon, it tends to bring together a community against one of its members, it tends towards unanimity...

Quote :

One female student recounted how, when she was a Columbine freshman, some jocks spotted her talking to Dylan Klebold in the school hallway between classes. After she walked away from him, one of the bullies slammed her against the lockers and called her a “fag lover.” None of the students came to help her – and when asked later why she didn’t report the incident to the administration, she replied, “It wouldn’t do any good because they wouldn’t do anything about it.”

So when the bullied want to take revenge, he shoots "at random", but not truly "at random": he shoots at "the whole"...

As a former teacher, I have witnessed how adults agree with the drowning of the bullied, how my colleagues were indifferent to the fate of the harassed kid. They never looked at the kids, adults were in the school as if they were blind, passing in the corridors, crossing the playground without ever a look at their students. I was the only of all adults ever looking at the playground... The school as a society, as a community, unanimously agrees with the loss of the bullied. And I have spoken to principals about bullying: they didn't care. That is to say, they didn't care about preventing violence, they cared only about crisis management, crisis communication, about how to handle the tragedy once it happened, once it was too late...

Charles

A huge just so story and saying because they killed themselves after a murder spree they had to have been bullied into it is not only justifying it is just begging the question, assuming they very thing at issue.

cakeman wrote:

A huge just so story and saying because they killed themselves after a murder spree they had to have been bullied into it is not only justifying it is just begging the question, assuming they very thing at issue.

- cakeman after being raped with a dildo by his crazy ex-gf

Hello Zortha

Zortha wrote:

Most of the students at CHS experienced some form of harassment by Rocky and the jocks at some point, but that doesn't mean that it was the cause of the attack. Upwards of 60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying during their school years. How many of them become mass shooters? Virtually none (virtually is not the same all). School shootings by occurrence are actually rare events when looked at from an absolute statistical perspectives. You can't point to something that's very common as the cause of something that is quite rare statistically speaking

"60% of students in the US experience some form of bullying"... You miss that these students are both bullied and bullies. In the hierarchy of the food chain, they are bullied by the upper link, and they bully the lower link... They console themselves for being harassed by the upper link by harassing the lower link. They can only endure bullying because they have victims under them whom they can bully. The critical position is the one of the last link, of the lowest link, who has nobody under him. This last link has no one not to talk to, no consolation, and he supports the pressure of the entire chain above him, he is the bullied of all.

Thus Emma Gomez is both a bully and bullied. Her personality already cracked under social pressure, she didn't come to suicide, but she was alienated enough to become what she is today. All the links of the chain are deformed by pressure. Emma Gomez is bisexual: she's heterosexual as a bully (as a female still hoping to get a male and in a socially valued relationship) and homosexual as bullied (as a female  who lost hope to reach the previous goal and has no other choice than to mate with another failing female). I witnessed that in a playground: an older student cornering and brutalizing a younger one who, as soon as he was released, found an even younger one to brutalize... it's a cascading phenomenon. All intermediate steps or links are both victim and tormentor, both bullied and bully. And the chain frantically trample the lower links, in fear to get close to the last positions, and to the very last one.

It is not only the jocks who bully, the whole community does: students, teachers and the principal, they all agree with violence as long as they don't fall at the last position, as long as they don't become the last link of the chain.

Charles

Zortha wrote:

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. (...) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Langman wrote:

"He addressed his parents and said, “There is nothing you guys could have done to prevent any of this. There is nothing that anyone could have done to prevent any of this. No one is to blame except me and Vodka. Our actions are a two man war against everyone else”22 (italics added). He went back to his position that no one else was to blame. He was simply waging war against the world.

Nonetheless, on the day of the attack, when the bombs failed to blow up the school, Eric found himself in the school’s library, face to face with innocent, unarmed students whom he was casually gunning down. How did he justify this? By telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him. The problem with this justification is that he was shooting people who had never done anything to him. This was not retaliation.
(...)
Harassment by peers was the “good reason” used to justify killing innocent people. The real reason had to do with Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale. "

This is not a serious work. Langman does not understand what is humiliation, how deep it goes and how painful it can be. How can a psychologist be such a virgin about feelings and emotions ? Because what we can see here with Harris is a basic defensive behavior of the humiliated: pretending that he wanted what he actually suffered.

The French novelist Marcel Proust deeply analyzed all these issues, the cruelty of social relations, the depth of humiliations, and in his famous novel A la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time), he describes the following scene: during a family meal, the father speaks about a prince, and he says that he would not want to have dinner at his mansion... Proust wrote that the "I don't want" of the father should be translated as "I can't"... Because anyway, the father was not invited to dinner by the prince.

Langman can't translate, and so he does not understand that he has the two versions of the same story, the translated and the not translated.

• Translated version pretending to act according to the will: "Our actions are a two man war against everyone else"
  
  
• Not translated version acknowledging the humiliation of rejection : "telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".
  

So Langman had to invent a ridiculous "Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others"... This is not work worthy of an academic, this is not serious. Once, there was a man on trial for murder and he kept silent, the victim's family and the journalists were outraged: why doesn't he give us an explanation? Well, the accused was more ashamed of the motive than of the murder itself, there was an humiliation at the beginning, so he pleaded guilty but didn't pronounce a single word in court... What psychologist wouldn't understand the silence of the humiliated?

Charles

"They can only endure bullying because they have victims under them whom they can bully. The critical position is the one of the last link, of the lowest link, who has nobody under him. This last link has no one not to talk to, no consolation, and he supports the pressure of the entire chain above him, he is the bullied of all."

And they weren't the last link at all. Multiple close friends of the pair such as Nate Dykeman, Laughlin or Heckler stated that they weren't outcasts or 'losers of the losers' and that they had many friends. This claim made by Brooks Brown who is a known liar.

Secondly of the students who reported witnessing harassment of either stated it was 'mild' or not worse than what most students expercienced.

They weren't at the bottom of the school hierarchy. This argument is bullshit.

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. (...) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Langman wrote:

"He addressed his parents and said, “There is nothing you guys could have done to prevent any of this. There is nothing that anyone could have done to prevent any of this. No one is to blame except me and Vodka. Our actions are a two man war against everyone else”22 (italics added). He went back to his position that no one else was to blame. He was simply waging war against the world.

Nonetheless, on the day of the attack, when the bombs failed to blow up the school, Eric found himself in the school’s library, face to face with innocent, unarmed students whom he was casually gunning down. How did he justify this? By telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him. The problem with this justification is that he was shooting people who had never done anything to him. This was not retaliation.
(...)
Harassment by peers was the “good reason” used to justify killing innocent people. The real reason had to do with Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale. "

This is not a serious work. Langman does not understand what is humiliation, how deep it goes and how painful it can be. How can a psychologist be such a virgin about feelings and emotions ? Because what we can see here with Harris is a basic defense behavior of the humiliated: pretending that we wanted what we actually suffered.

The French novelist Marcel Proust deeply analyzed all these issues, the cruelty of social relations, the depth of humiliations, and in his famous novel A la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time), he describes the following scene: during a family meal, the father speaks about a prince, and he says that he would not want to have dinner at his mansion... Proust wrote that the "I don't want" of the father should be translated as "I can't"... Because anyway, the father was not invited to dinner by the prince.

Langman can't translate, and so he does not understand that he has the two versions of the same story, the translated one and the not translated.

• Translated version pretending to act according to the will: "Our actions are a two man war against everyone else"
  
  
• Not translated version acknowledging the humiliation of rejection : "telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".
  

So Langman had to invent a ridiculous "Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others"... This is not work worthy of an academic, this is not serious. There was a man on trial for murder and he kept silent. The victim's family and the journalists were outraged: why doesn't he give us an explanation? Well, the accused was more ashamed of the motive than of the murder itself, there was an humiliation at the beginning, so he pleaded guilty but didn't pronounce a single word in court... What psychologist wouldn't understand the silence of the humiliated?

Charles

Again with the argument that he was only projecting a 'badass strongman' persona in his journal when he says bullying wasn't the cause? Whenever he brings up harassment in the journal( less than three times), and then goes on to state that he does the same to others and its just human nature to do what they did? Is it the same journal where he admits embarrassing vulnerabilities and insecurities like not being tall enough, not being able to get a gf and get laid, his looks, and his chest? This 'badass persona' deflection is pure and utter copium.

You simply can't claim the passages and on the tapes where he says harassment wasn't the cause as 'lies' while at the same time believing that when he mentions bullying as a reason is him being truthful.
More often than not Eric says that nobody is to blame for the attack on both the journals and the tapes, versus claiming it was driven by a desire for revenge. However, we are to believe that when he mentions bullying as a motivator for the attack he's telling the honest to God truth? The same person who brags about his lying and manipulation skills and can make you believe a person is growing out of their chest and that he climbed Mt Everest? He consistently contradicted himself because none of the reasons he gave were meaningful motivators. They were not the real reasons.


"telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".

Not a single person he killed 'picked' on him, so why not blow up and shoot the jocks in the gym instead? The reason why was because everyone was a target. and that their friends might be caught in the blast and killed. They told everyone in the library to stand up right after they mentioned white hats.

Here's another paper putting your argument to rest: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Zortha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. (...) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Langman wrote:

"He addressed his parents and said, “There is nothing you guys could have done to prevent any of this. There is nothing that anyone could have done to prevent any of this. No one is to blame except me and Vodka. Our actions are a two man war against everyone else”22 (italics added). He went back to his position that no one else was to blame. He was simply waging war against the world.

Nonetheless, on the day of the attack, when the bombs failed to blow up the school, Eric found himself in the school’s library, face to face with innocent, unarmed students whom he was casually gunning down. How did he justify this? By telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him. The problem with this justification is that he was shooting people who had never done anything to him. This was not retaliation.
(...)
Harassment by peers was the “good reason” used to justify killing innocent people. The real reason had to do with Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale. "

This is not a serious work. Langman does not understand what is humiliation, how deep it goes and how painful it can be. How can a psychologist be such a virgin about feelings and emotions ? Because what we can see here with Harris is a basic defense behavior of the humiliated: pretending that we wanted what we actually suffered.

The French novelist Marcel Proust deeply analyzed all these issues, the cruelty of social relations, the depth of humiliations, and in his famous novel A la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time), he describes the following scene: during a family meal, the father speaks about a prince, and he says that he would not want to have dinner at his mansion... Proust wrote that the "I don't want" of the father should be translated as "I can't"... Because anyway, the father was not invited to dinner by the prince.

Langman can't translate, and so he does not understand that he has the two versions of the same story, the translated one and the not translated.

• Translated version pretending to act according to the will: "Our actions are a two man war against everyone else"
  
  
• Not translated version acknowledging the humiliation of rejection : "telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".
  

So Langman had to invent a ridiculous "Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others"... This is not work worthy of an academic, this is not serious. There was a man on trial for murder and he kept silent. The victim's family and the journalists were outraged: why doesn't he give us an explanation? Well, the accused was more ashamed of the motive than of the murder itself, there was an humiliation at the beginning, so he pleaded guilty but didn't pronounce a single word in court... What psychologist wouldn't understand the silence of the humiliated?

Charles

Again with the argument that he was only projecting a 'badass strongman' persona in his journal? Whenever he brings up harassment in the journal( less than three times), and then goes on to state that he does the same to others and its just human nature to do what they did? The same journal where he admits embarrassing vulnerabilities and insecurities like not being tall enough, not being able to get a gf and get laid, his looks, and his chest?

More often than not Eric says that nobody is to blame for the attack on both the journals and the tapes, versus claiming it was driven by a desire for revenge. However, we are to believe that when he mentions bullying as a motivator for the attack he's telling the honest to God truth? The same person who brags about his lying and manipulation skills and can make you believe a person is growing out of their chest and that he climbed Mt Everest? He consistently contradicted himself because none of the reasons he gave were meaningful motivators. They were not the real reasons.


"telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".

Not a single person he killed 'picked' on him. Why not blow up and shoot the jocks in the gym instead? The reason why was because everyone was a target.  and that their friends might be caught in the blast and killed. They told everyone in the library to stand up.

Here's another paper putting your argument to rest: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Please, stop writing your psychoanalytic bullshit and read something factual. You could argue the same way that 9/11 attackers were actually motivated by "Disturbances in oral phase when they were children" or some Freud shit, not by Islamic extremism.

E&D targeted the school because it was a symbol of their failures in relations with peers (misunderstandings with their friends, romantic failures, bullying they experienced etc.); their violent tendencies evolved over the years and eventually focused on the school as their main target.

I will never understand people who analyze E&D's motivations as if they were an anomaly in the history of humanity and Eric as if he was the worst figure than Hitler, Saddam and whoever. Of course their motivations was complicated, but such level of ignorance and viewing them as "psychopaths" (Eric) and "depressive teens" (Dylan) who wanted to kill people "for fun" without any cultural/ideological/social context is just stupid and hilarious.

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. (...) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Langman wrote:

"He addressed his parents and said, “There is nothing you guys could have done to prevent any of this. There is nothing that anyone could have done to prevent any of this. No one is to blame except me and Vodka. Our actions are a two man war against everyone else”22 (italics added). He went back to his position that no one else was to blame. He was simply waging war against the world.

Nonetheless, on the day of the attack, when the bombs failed to blow up the school, Eric found himself in the school’s library, face to face with innocent, unarmed students whom he was casually gunning down. How did he justify this? By telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him. The problem with this justification is that he was shooting people who had never done anything to him. This was not retaliation.
(...)
Harassment by peers was the “good reason” used to justify killing innocent people. The real reason had to do with Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale. "

This is not a serious work. Langman does not understand what is humiliation, how deep it goes and how painful it can be. How can a psychologist be such a virgin about feelings and emotions ? Because what we can see here with Harris is a basic defense behavior of the humiliated: pretending that we wanted what we actually suffered.

The French novelist Marcel Proust deeply analyzed all these issues, the cruelty of social relations, the depth of humiliations, and in his famous novel A la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time), he describes the following scene: during a family meal, the father speaks about a prince, and he says that he would not want to have dinner at his mansion... Proust wrote that the "I don't want" of the father should be translated as "I can't"... Because anyway, the father was not invited to dinner by the prince.

Langman can't translate, and so he does not understand that he has the two versions of the same story, the translated one and the not translated.

• Translated version pretending to act according to the will: "Our actions are a two man war against everyone else"
  
  
• Not translated version acknowledging the humiliation of rejection : "telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".
  

So Langman had to invent a ridiculous "Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others"... This is not work worthy of an academic, this is not serious. There was a man on trial for murder and he kept silent. The victim's family and the journalists were outraged: why doesn't he give us an explanation? Well, the accused was more ashamed of the motive than of the murder itself, there was an humiliation at the beginning, so he pleaded guilty but didn't pronounce a single word in court... What psychologist wouldn't understand the silence of the humiliated?

Charles

Again with the argument that he was only projecting a 'badass strongman' persona in his journal? Whenever he brings up harassment in the journal( less than three times), and then goes on to state that he does the same to others and its just human nature to do what they did? The same journal where he admits embarrassing vulnerabilities and insecurities like not being tall enough, not being able to get a gf and get laid, his looks, and his chest?

More often than not Eric says that nobody is to blame for the attack on both the journals and the tapes, versus claiming it was driven by a desire for revenge. However, we are to believe that when he mentions bullying as a motivator for the attack he's telling the honest to God truth? The same person who brags about his lying and manipulation skills and can make you believe a person is growing out of their chest and that he climbed Mt Everest? He consistently contradicted himself because none of the reasons he gave were meaningful motivators. They were not the real reasons.


"telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".

Not a single person he killed 'picked' on him. Why not blow up and shoot the jocks in the gym instead? The reason why was because everyone was a target.  and that their friends might be caught in the blast and killed. They told everyone in the library to stand up.

Here's another paper putting your argument to rest: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Please, stop writing your psychoanalytic bullshit and read something factual. You could argue the same way that 9/11 attackers were actually motivated by "Disturbances in oral phase when they were children" or some Freud shit, not by Islamic extremism.

E&D targeted the school because it was a symbol of their failures in relations with peers (misunderstandings with their friends, romantic failures, bullying they experienced etc.); their violent tendencies evolved over the years and eventually focused on the school as their main target.

I will never understand people who analyze E&D's motivations as if they were an anomaly in the history of humanity and Eric as if he was the worst figure than Hitler, Saddam and whoever. Of course their motivations was complicated, but such level of ignorance and viewing them as "psychopaths" (Eric) and "depressive teens" (Dylan) who wanted to kill people "for fun" without any cultural/ideological/social context is just stupid and hilarious.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have made the same arguments as me. God forbid someone cites actual evidence so we can actually prevent such incidents instead of dumbass tumblrbine and /pol/tard theories.

No, it's not comparable to the 9/11 hijackers, doofus. Al Qaeda was consistent in stating the motivation was due to US foreign policy and the targets reflected those. They didn't state multiple times that it had nothing to do with such policies; nobody is to blame; and then chose targets that had nothing to do with the US government. If they did THEN it would be comparable to E & D.

Zortha wrote:

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Eric explicitly stated that the attack that even if he was respected more it would've still likely happened. He brings up harassment only twice and then exonerates his peers right after by stating he also bullies and makes fun of others every time. He exonerates the school's administration, his parents, and his peers. Both in his journal and in the tapes. You can read the transcripts of the tapes on Langman's site. (...) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Langman wrote:

"He addressed his parents and said, “There is nothing you guys could have done to prevent any of this. There is nothing that anyone could have done to prevent any of this. No one is to blame except me and Vodka. Our actions are a two man war against everyone else”22 (italics added). He went back to his position that no one else was to blame. He was simply waging war against the world.

Nonetheless, on the day of the attack, when the bombs failed to blow up the school, Eric found himself in the school’s library, face to face with innocent, unarmed students whom he was casually gunning down. How did he justify this? By telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him. The problem with this justification is that he was shooting people who had never done anything to him. This was not retaliation.
(...)
Harassment by peers was the “good reason” used to justify killing innocent people. The real reason had to do with Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale. "

This is not a serious work. Langman does not understand what is humiliation, how deep it goes and how painful it can be. How can a psychologist be such a virgin about feelings and emotions ? Because what we can see here with Harris is a basic defense behavior of the humiliated: pretending that we wanted what we actually suffered.

The French novelist Marcel Proust deeply analyzed all these issues, the cruelty of social relations, the depth of humiliations, and in his famous novel A la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time), he describes the following scene: during a family meal, the father speaks about a prince, and he says that he would not want to have dinner at his mansion... Proust wrote that the "I don't want" of the father should be translated as "I can't"... Because anyway, the father was not invited to dinner by the prince.

Langman can't translate, and so he does not understand that he has the two versions of the same story, the translated one and the not translated.

• Translated version pretending to act according to the will: "Our actions are a two man war against everyone else"
  
  
• Not translated version acknowledging the humiliation of rejection : "telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".
  

So Langman had to invent a ridiculous "Eric’s desire to play God by having the power of life and death over others"... This is not work worthy of an academic, this is not serious. There was a man on trial for murder and he kept silent. The victim's family and the journalists were outraged: why doesn't he give us an explanation? Well, the accused was more ashamed of the motive than of the murder itself, there was an humiliation at the beginning, so he pleaded guilty but didn't pronounce a single word in court... What psychologist wouldn't understand the silence of the humiliated?

Charles

Again with the argument that he was only projecting a 'badass strongman' persona in his journal? Whenever he brings up harassment in the journal( less than three times), and then goes on to state that he does the same to others and its just human nature to do what they did? The same journal where he admits embarrassing vulnerabilities and insecurities like not being tall enough, not being able to get a gf and get laid, his looks, and his chest?

More often than not Eric says that nobody is to blame for the attack on both the journals and the tapes, versus claiming it was driven by a desire for revenge. However, we are to believe that when he mentions bullying as a motivator for the attack he's telling the honest to God truth? The same person who brags about his lying and manipulation skills and can make you believe a person is growing out of their chest and that he climbed Mt Everest? He consistently contradicted himself because none of the reasons he gave were meaningful motivators. They were not the real reasons.


"telling the students that he was killing them because they had picked on him".

Not a single person he killed 'picked' on him. Why not blow up and shoot the jocks in the gym instead? The reason why was because everyone was a target.  and that their friends might be caught in the blast and killed. They told everyone in the library to stand up.

Here's another paper putting your argument to rest: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Please, stop writing your psychoanalytic bullshit and read something factual. You could argue the same way that 9/11 attackers were actually motivated by "Disturbances in oral phase when they were children" or some Freud shit, not by Islamic extremism.

E&D targeted the school because it was a symbol of their failures in relations with peers (misunderstandings with their friends, romantic failures, bullying they experienced etc.); their violent tendencies evolved over the years and eventually focused on the school as their main target.

I will never understand people who analyze E&D's motivations as if they were an anomaly in the history of humanity and Eric as if he was the worst figure than Hitler, Saddam and whoever. Of course their motivations was complicated, but such level of ignorance and viewing them as "psychopaths" (Eric) and "depressive teens" (Dylan) who wanted to kill people "for fun" without any cultural/ideological/social context is just stupid and hilarious.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have made the same arguments as me. God forbid someone cites actual evidence so we can actually prevent such incidents instead of dumbass tumblrbine and /pol/tard theories.

"Dumbass tumblrine and poltard theories" lmao. Change your CD in the jukebox and try to use more creative insults.

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have made the same arguments as me

Wow, that's the strongest argument I've ever seen. "I'm right because someone else made the same arguments". Take a logic classes or smth, do it fgt.

Zortha wrote:

Secondly of the students who reported witnessing harassment of either stated it was 'mild' or not worse than what most students expercienced.

They were bullied and they committed suicide as did many other teenagers. And the "witnesses" can't have any idea of the suffering endured by the bullied, as they all participated in the bullying:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

They speak of "mild" harassment driving two students to suicide... what mildness is that? All the elements of bullying are there, even the outcome of suicide, which is the necessary outcome - a surviving victim is a failed bullying, a suicided victim is successful bullying. Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon. Harris and Klebold could have commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, like hundreds of other bullied, it was common violence, common stupidity, common consent of the principal and the teachers, and common outcome for the suicided.

The problem is that the easy access to guns allows some of the suicided to take revenge, that is to say: the problem of school shootings is that they completely disclose the violent and pervert nature of social relations in the group. It's painful for you to think the school shooting, because it would make you think your own violence as a society. The harassment was "mild" and yet it drove them to suicide... but you don't have to bear any responsibility, of course. And when growing up, you prefer to sacrifice the victims of the shooters rather than to address as adults the violence in the schools where you send your own children: you agree with the massacre, it is the price you are ready to pay for not admitting your own violence... You see, the teachers, the principals, the families, they all agree with the loss of the bullied but also with the loss of a few dozens of bullies.

And so when there is a school shooting, they all pretend to be surprised, and some pseudo-experts like Peter Langman and Jordan Peterson (this one breaks all records for idiocy) work at hiding the true perversion of social life inside schools.

Charles

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Secondly of the students who reported witnessing harassment of either stated it was 'mild' or not worse than what most students expercienced.

They were bullied and they committed suicide as did many other teenagers. And the "witnesses" can't have any idea of the suffering endured by the bullied, as they all participated in the bullying:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

They speak of "mild" harassment driving two students to suicide... what mildness is that? All the elements of bullying are there, even the outcome of suicide, which is the necessary outcome - a surviving victim is a failed bullying, a suicided victim is successful bullying. Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon. Harris and Klebold could have commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, like hundreds of other bullied, it was common violence, common stupidity, common consent of the principal and the teachers, and common outcome for the suicided.

The problem is that the easy access to guns allows some of the suicided to take revenge, that is to say: the problem of school shootings is that they completely disclose the violent and pervert nature of social relations in the group. It's painful for you to think the school shooting, because it would make you think your own violence as a society. The harassment was "mild" and yet it drove them to suicide... you don't have to bear any responsibility, of course. And when growing up, you prefer to sacrifice the victims of the shooters rather than to address as adults the violence in the schools where you send your own children: you agree with the massacre, it is the price you are ready to pay for not admitting your own violence... You see, the teachers, the principals, the families, they all agree with the loss of the bullied but also with the loss of a few dozens of bullies.

And so when there is a school shooting, they all pretend to be surprised, and some pseudo-experts like Peter Langman and Jordan Peterson (this one breaks all records for idiocy) work at hiding the true perversion of social life inside schools.

Charles

"They were bullied and they committed suicide as did many other teenagers. And the "witnesses" can't have any idea of the suffering endured by the bullied, as they all participated in the bullying:"

Brother in Christ: I never stated they weren't harassed. I stated that of the students who reported harassment in the 11k, most of them said it was "mild" and not severe, and with E&D saying it wasn't the cause.
Just because they were harassed doesn't mean it was the cause of the attack. The majority of students experience some sort of bullying during their school years (about 60-70%) in the US. How many turn to mass murder? Nearly nil, otherwise we'd see a lot of more school shootings.


“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

Evan isn't referring to Eric and Dylan, it was referring to another group of students. You accuse Langman of ignorance when it's you that's ignorant and arrogant.

Quoting from page 3: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"Who is this student talking about? The reporters’ comment says he was talking about “Klebold and Harris and their friends,” but nothing that the student said applied to Eric and Dylan. They were not into witchcraft. They were not into voodoo. They did not have weird hairdos. They did not wear horns on their hats.
They did not grab each other’s crotches. There were kids at
Columbine who did these things, but Eric and Dylan were not
among them. Thus, we again see a student apparently talking about Eric and Dylan, but confusing them with all the stu-dents who were considered misfits, outcasts, or members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

Evan Todd isn't referring to E&D. They didn't wear horns, weird hats, or grabbed each other's crotches or were into witchcraft and voodoo. That was the TCM.

"They speak of "mild" harassment driving two students to suicide... what mildness is that? All the elements of bullying are there, even the outcome of suicide, which is the necessary outcome - a surviving victim is a failed bullying, a suicided victim is successful bullying."

See above.

"Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon."

This is a complete assumption on your part. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with any sort of evidence.

"Harris and Klebold could have commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, like hundreds of other bullied, it was common violence, common stupidity, common consent of the principal and the teachers, and common outcome for the suicided."

Again, repeating the same argument. The good majority of students in the US experience some sort of bullying throughout their school years. So how many become mass murderers? Nearly nil.
Did you read Eric's journal? He only brings up harassment three times with each time stating that he does the same thing to other students, and that it's 'human nature' to do what they did. Dylan doesn't even bring up harassment even once in his diary.

Let's look at what Eric says in his journal, shall we? Eric admits the school's administration (DeAngelis) isn't at fault. Quoting from:  https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/harris_search_for_justification_1.3.pdf (page 1&2)"

"I chose to kill that one person so get over it! It’s MY fault! Not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media. IT IS MINE!1God damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and [Vodka, i.e., Dylan] for this. Don’t blame my family, they
had no clue and there’s nothing they could have done, they
brought me up just fucking fine ... don’t blame the school
. . . the admin[istration] is doing a fine job.2"

Here he explicitly states that nobody is at fault, and that not even the school's administration is to blame. Furthermore he goes on to state right after:
"someone’s bound to say “what were they thinking?” when
we go NBK [Natural Born Killers, his code name for the attack] or when we were planning it, so this is what I am
thinking. “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible” ...
Keep this in mind, I want to burn the world.3
THIS is what I am motivated for, THIS is my goal. THIS is
what I want “to do with my life.”

Here he gives his actual reason for the attack. He wanted to kill as many people as possible by committing the deadliest terrorist attack in US history and outscoring someone like McVeigh. Why? Because he wants to and believes that he's superior to everyone else on the planet. They chose the school for two reasons: they were familiar with it, and it offered an opportunity to kill hundreds of people if the bombs went off.

Let's look at another entry in his journal:

"If people would give me more compliments all of this might still be avoidable . . . but prob-ably not.”19"

There you have it. Here he explicitly states that even if he was respected and complimented more, the attack would've still occured in all likelihood.

Your argument (and others who stated the motivation was bullying) is that he was projecting a 'badass Reb persona' in his journals and didn't want to be seen as 'weak' by others. This is bullshit copium. Eric admits multiple weaknesses, and embarrassing securities in his same journal such as not being able to have sex, not being able to have a stable romantic relationship with girls, his short height and his deformed chest.

So according to you every time Eric states that harassment wasn't the cause and that nobody is to blame he's lying and doesn't want to be seen as 'pathetic'. While simultaneously
believing that every time he brings up harassment as a cause on the tapes (and even there says nobody is at fault after) he's telling the truth from God himself?  Lmao

Be humbled and don't accuse others of being 'ignorant' when it's you that reflects it. Dunning-Kruger is truly something.

Zortha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

Secondly of the students who reported witnessing harassment of either stated it was 'mild' or not worse than what most students expercienced.

They were bullied and they committed suicide as did many other teenagers. And the "witnesses" can't have any idea of the suffering endured by the bullied, as they all participated in the bullying:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

They speak of "mild" harassment driving two students to suicide... what mildness is that? All the elements of bullying are there, even the outcome of suicide, which is the necessary outcome - a surviving victim is a failed bullying, a suicided victim is successful bullying. Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon. Harris and Klebold could have commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, like hundreds of other bullied, it was common violence, common stupidity, common consent of the principal and the teachers, and common outcome for the suicided.

The problem is that the easy access to guns allows some of the suicided to take revenge, that is to say: the problem of school shootings is that they completely disclose the violent and pervert nature of social relations in the group. It's painful for you to think the school shooting, because it would make you think your own violence as a society. The harassment was "mild" and yet it drove them to suicide... you don't have to bear any responsibility, of course. And when growing up, you prefer to sacrifice the victims of the shooters rather than to address as adults the violence in the schools where you send your own children: you agree with the massacre, it is the price you are ready to pay for not admitting your own violence... You see, the teachers, the principals, the families, they all agree with the loss of the bullied but also with the loss of a few dozens of bullies.

And so when there is a school shooting, they all pretend to be surprised, and some pseudo-experts like Peter Langman and Jordan Peterson (this one breaks all records for idiocy) work at hiding the true perversion of social life inside schools.

Charles

"They were bullied and they committed suicide as did many other teenagers. And the "witnesses" can't have any idea of the suffering endured by the bullied, as they all participated in the bullying:"

Brother in Christ: I never stated they weren't harassed. I stated that of the students who reported harassment in the 11k, most of them said it was "mild" and not severe. Just because they were harassed doesn't mean it was the cause of the attack. The majority of students experience some sort of bullying during their school years in the US. How many turn to mass murder? Nearly nil, otherwise we'd see a lot of more school shootings.


“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

Evan isn't referring to Eric and Dylan, it was referring to another group of students. You accuse Langman of ignorance when it's you that's ignorant and arrogant.

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

Quoting from page 3:

"Who is this student talking about? The reporters’ comment says he was talking about “Klebold and Harris and their friends,” but nothing that the student said applied to Eric and Dylan. They were not into witchcraft. They were not into voodoo. They did not have weird hairdos. They did not wear horns on their hats.
They did not grab each other’s crotches. There were kids at
Columbine who did these things, but Eric and Dylan were not
among them. Thus, we again see a student apparently talking about Eric and Dylan, but confusing them with all the stu-dents who were considered misfits, outcasts, or members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

"They speak of "mild" harassment driving two students to suicide... what mildness is that? All the elements of bullying are there, even the outcome of suicide, which is the necessary outcome - a surviving victim is a failed bullying, a suicided victim is successful bullying."

See above. Evan Todd isn't referring to E&D. They didn't wear horns, weird hats, or grabbed each other's crotches. This was likely referring to members of the TCM who also kissed each other.

"Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon."

This is a complete assumption on your part. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with any sort of evidence.

"Harris and Klebold could have commit suicide in their bedroom or garage, like hundreds of other bullied, it was common violence, common stupidity, common consent of the principal and the teachers, and common outcome for the suicided."

Again, repeating the same argument. The good majority of students in the US experience some sort of bullying throughout their school years. So how many become mass murderers? Nearly nil.
Did you read Eric's journal? He only brings up harassment three times with each time stating that he does the same thing to other students, and that it's 'human nature' to do what they did. Dylan doesn't even bring up harassment even once in his diary.

Let's look at what Eric says in his journal, shall we? Eric admits the school's administration (DeAngelis) isn't at fault. Quoting from:  https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/harris_search_for_justification_1.3.pdf (page 1&2)"

"I chose to kill that one person so get over it! It’s MY fault! Not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media. IT IS MINE!1God damnit do not blame anyone else besides me and [Vodka, i.e., Dylan] for this. Don’t blame my family, they
had no clue and there’s nothing they could have done, they
brought me up just fucking fine ... don’t blame the school
. . . the admin[istration] is doing a fine job.2"

Here he explicitly states that nobody is at fault, and that not even the school's administration is to blame. Furthermore he goes on to state right after:
"someone’s bound to say “what were they thinking?” when
we go NBK [Natural Born Killers, his code name for the attack] or when we were planning it, so this is what I am
thinking. “I have a goal to destroy as much as possible” ...
Keep this in mind, I want to burn the world.3
THIS is what I am motivated for, THIS is my goal. THIS is
what I want “to do with my life.”

Here he gives his actual reason for the attack. He wanted to kill as many people as possible by committing the deadliest terrorist attack in US history and outscoring someone like McVeigh. Why? Because he wants to and believes that he's superior to everyone else on the planet. They chose the school for two reasons: they were familiar with it, and it offered an opportunity to kill hundreds of people if the bombs went off.

Let's look at another entry in his journal "If people would give me more
compliments all of this might still be avoidable . . . but prob-
ably not.”19"

There you have it. Here he explicitly states that even if he was respected and complimented more, the attack would've still occured in all likelihood.

Your argument (and others who stated the motivation was bullying) is that he was projecting a 'badass Reb persona' in his journals and didn't want to be seen as 'weak' by others. This is bullshit copium. Eric admits multiple weaknesses, and embarrassing securities in his same journal such as not being able to have sex, not being able to have a stable romantic relationship with girls, his short height and his deformed chest.

So according to you every time Eric states that harassment wasn't the cause and that nobody is to blame he's lying and doesn't want to be seen as 'pathetic'. While simultaneously
believing that every time he brings up harassment as a cause on the tapes and diary he's telling the truth from God himself?  Lmao

Be humbled and don't accuse others of being 'ignorant' when it's you that reflects it. Dunning-Kruger is truly something.

I'll repeat once again - close Freud's books and read something more important. Or find something like a ''Left-wing Discussion Forum'' dedicated for BLM girls like you. Btw it's really pathetic that you accuse other people for reinterpreting words from perpetrator's journals when that's EXACTLY what you do in almost every of your posts in this thread. You haven't been inside the perpetrator's souls to find out exactly what they feel. You just interpret their words according to your own feelings, that's all. My sources are:

> Their journals

> Other writings by E&D

> Official report

And how about your sources? What exactly your sources are? Langman's theories (the same Langman who compared Woodham-Boyette relation to E&D relation)? Cullen's theories? Sasha Grey porn? Marquis de Sade books? Or Sigmund Freud shit?

Do you still think you're so ''enlightened'', ''progressive'' and ''modern'' for saying your bullshit?

PROTIP: You're not.

Zortha wrote:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

Evan isn't referring to Eric and Dylan, it was referring to another group of students.

The statement is crystal clear: "Columbine", "the whole school", "to get rid of someone"... the school was sick with bullying, period.

Zortha wrote:

Thus, we again see a student apparently talking about Eric and Dylan, but confusing them with all the students who were considered misfits, outcasts, or members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

"Students who were considered misfits, outcasts": what beautiful humanity! The "whole school "wanted to "get rid of" the "weird", "rejects", "misfits", "outcasts"... And they said their school was "clean"! You see, they used a religious concept, the one of purity: they performed sacrifices, they washed themselves from filth when getting rid of the impure. Bullying was an ideology at Columbine, and a religious one, brutally archaic. It feels like we're in Lord of the Flies by William Golding or in Violence and the Sacred by René Girard (who taught at Stanford), in some archaic and deeply stupid organization of violence.

Zortha wrote:

"Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon."

This is a complete assumption on your part. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with any sort of evidence.

Thousands of pages have been written by anthropologists on this subject.

Zortha wrote:

Eric admits multiple weaknesses, and embarrassing securities in his same journal such as not being able to have sex, not being able to have a stable romantic relationship with girls, his short height and his deformed chest.

Here are some sufferings, the lesser ones, and bullying was the great one.

Zortha wrote:

So according to you every time Eric states that harassment wasn't the cause and that nobody is to blame he's lying and doesn't want to be seen as 'pathetic'. While simultaneously believing that every time he brings up harassment as a cause on the tapes (and even there says nobody is at fault after) he's telling the truth from God himself?

That's what most people do: they struggle about the acceptance of their humiliation, they avoid to face it, they tell stories about it... In this regard, the case of Seung-Hui Cho is quite exceptional: he had the courage to precisely measure the depth of his lowering and not hide to himself anything of his misery, maybe because he had the talent to be a writer (what a waste, his plays were Kafkaesque and truly brilliant). So Seung-Hui Cho was an exception, and the vast majority of us always try to lie about our wounds and failures.

For the rest, I'm not responding because obviously you haven't read my comments or you can't understand them.

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

Evan isn't referring to Eric and Dylan, it was referring to another group of students.

The statement is crystal clear: "Columbine", "the whole school", "to get rid of someone"... the school was sick with bullying, period.

Zortha wrote:

Thus, we again see a student apparently talking about Eric and Dylan, but confusing them with all the students who were considered misfits, outcasts, or members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

"Students who were considered misfits, outcasts": what beautiful humanity! The "whole school "wanted to "get rid of" the "weird", "rejects", "misfits", "outcasts"... And they said their school was "clean"! You see, they used a religious concept, the one of purity: they performed sacrifices, they washed themselves from filth when getting rid of the impure. Bullying was an ideology at Columbine, and a religious one. It feels like we're in Lord of the flies by William Golding or in Violence and the Sacred by René Girard (who taught at Stanford), in some archaic and deeply stupid organization of violence.

Zortha wrote:

"Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon."

This is a complete assumption on your part. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with any sort of evidence.

Thousands of pages have been written by anthropologists on this subject.

Zortha wrote:

Eric admits multiple weaknesses, and embarrassing securities in his same journal such as not being able to have sex, not being able to have a stable romantic relationship with girls, his short height and his deformed chest.

Here are some sufferings, the lesser ones, and bullying was the great one.

Zortha wrote:

So according to you every time Eric states that harassment wasn't the cause and that nobody is to blame he's lying and doesn't want to be seen as 'pathetic'. While simultaneously believing that every time he brings up harassment as a cause on the tapes (and even there says nobody is at fault after) he's telling the truth from God himself?

That's what most people do: they struggle about the acceptance of their humiliation, they avoid to face it, they tell stories about it... In this regard, the case of Seung-Hui Cho is quite exceptional: he had the courage to precisely measure the depth of his lowering and not hide to himself anything of his misery. Maybe because he had the talent to be a writer (what a waste), his plays were truly brilliant and Kafkaesque. So Seung-Hui Cho was an exception, and the vast majority of us always try to lie about our wounds and failures.

For the rest, I'm not responding because obviously you haven't read my comments or you can't understand them.

"The statement is crystal clear: "Columbine", "the whole school", "to get rid of someone"... the school was sick with bullying, period."

Oh my god. I never said the school didn't have an issue with bullying. Nearly all high schools in America suffered from bullying as well as having the stereotypical jocks.  I said that harassment wasn't the cause behind the attack. The statement you quote by Evan Todd was referring to the TCM, not E&D. Multiple close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler said that they weren't 'outcasts' or loners without friends, let alone "losers of the losers".
Brooks' is the one who claims they are and Brooks is a known chronic and compulsive liar who was called out by another close friend of the pair. He and his father are charlatans.

"Thousands of pages have been written by anthropologists on this subject."

What relevance does this have here? To understand the causes and prevention of school shootings we need to look at forensic psychology and criminology, not anthropology. I've cited several academic papers by independent psychs (not affiliated with either the FBI or Cullen) to prove my point. I linked a paper on researchgate above by completely different psychologists (not Langman) who reach the same conclusion that you completely ignores. It isn't a conspiracy.

Your belief is that the reason they didn't explicitly state that bullying was the real cause or call out the person(s) responsible for harassment was because they didn't want to be seen as "weak" or vulnerable and wanted to be seen as Gods. I pointed out that they admit several embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in their writings and cited evidence for it, hence the claim that they wanted to be seen as 'badass' persons is BS as they had no problem admitting several deeply-held flaws in their personal writings.

As the famous occams razor goes: the simplest and most likely answer with the least assumptions is that it wasn't motivated by bullying. Keep repeating the same argument that I've already addressed ITT. Maybe if you repeat it enough times it'll become true.

Zortha wrote:

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

“Columbine is a clean, good place except for those rejects (Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and other outcasts) … Sure, we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? It’s not just the jocks; the whole school's disgusted with them. They’re a bunch of homos… If you want to get rid of someone usually you tease ‘em. So the whole school would call them homos…,” said Columbine student Evan Todd.

Evan isn't referring to Eric and Dylan, it was referring to another group of students.

The statement is crystal clear: "Columbine", "the whole school", "to get rid of someone"... the school was sick with bullying, period.

Zortha wrote:

Thus, we again see a student apparently talking about Eric and Dylan, but confusing them with all the students who were considered misfits, outcasts, or members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

"Students who were considered misfits, outcasts": what beautiful humanity! The "whole school "wanted to "get rid of" the "weird", "rejects", "misfits", "outcasts"... And they said their school was "clean"! You see, they used a religious concept, the one of purity: they performed sacrifices, they washed themselves from filth when getting rid of the impure. Bullying was an ideology at Columbine, and a religious one. It feels like we're in Lord of the flies by William Golding or in Violence and the Sacred by René Girard (who taught at Stanford), in some archaic and deeply stupid organization of violence.

Zortha wrote:

"Death is not an accident, it is the aim of bullying, lynching, scapegoating and sacrifice which are the same phenomenon."

This is a complete assumption on your part. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with any sort of evidence.

Thousands of pages have been written by anthropologists on this subject.

Zortha wrote:

Eric admits multiple weaknesses, and embarrassing securities in his same journal such as not being able to have sex, not being able to have a stable romantic relationship with girls, his short height and his deformed chest.

Here are some sufferings, the lesser ones, and bullying was the great one.

Zortha wrote:

So according to you every time Eric states that harassment wasn't the cause and that nobody is to blame he's lying and doesn't want to be seen as 'pathetic'. While simultaneously believing that every time he brings up harassment as a cause on the tapes (and even there says nobody is at fault after) he's telling the truth from God himself?

That's what most people do: they struggle about the acceptance of their humiliation, they avoid to face it, they tell stories about it... In this regard, the case of Seung-Hui Cho is quite exceptional: he had the courage to precisely measure the depth of his lowering and not hide to himself anything of his misery. Maybe because he had the talent to be a writer (what a waste), his plays were truly brilliant and Kafkaesque. So Seung-Hui Cho was an exception, and the vast majority of us always try to lie about our wounds and failures.

For the rest, I'm not responding because obviously you haven't read my comments or you can't understand them.

"The statement is crystal clear: "Columbine", "the whole school", "to get rid of someone"... the school was sick with bullying, period."

Oh my god. I never said the school didn't have an issue with bullying. Nearly all high schools in America suffered from bullying as well as having the stereotypical jocks.  I said that harassment wasn't the cause behind the attack. The statement you quote by Evan Todd was referring to the TCM, not E&D. Multiple close friends of the pair like Dykeman, Laughlin, and Heckler said that they weren't 'outcasts' or loners without friends, let alone "losers of the losers".
Brooks' is the one who claims they are and Brooks is a known chronic and compulsive liar who was called out by another close friend of the pair. He and his father are charlatans.

"Thousands of pages have been written by anthropologists on this subject."

What relevance does this have here? To understand the causes and prevention of school shootings we need to look at forensic psychology and criminology, not anthropology. I've cited several academic papers by independent psychs (not affiliated with either the FBI or Cullen) to prove my point. I linked a paper on researchgate above by completely different psychologists (not Langman) who reach the same conclusion that you completely ignores. It isn't a conspiracy.

Your belief is that the reason they didn't explicitly state that bullying was the real cause or call out the person(s) responsible for harassment was because they didn't want to be seen as "weak" or vulnerable and wanted to be seen as Gods. I pointed out that they admit several embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in their writings and cited evidence for it, hence the claim that they wanted to be seen as 'badass' persons is BS as they had no problem admitting several deeply-held flaws in their personal writings.

As the famous razor says: the simplest and most likely answer with the least assumptions is that it wasn't motivated by bullying. Keep repeating the same argument that I've already addressed ITT. Maybe if you repeat it enough times it'll become true.

Me: His name was Eric, not Robert.

Zortha: "His name is Robert Poulsen, his name is Robert Poulsen, his name is Robert Poulsen...". Shut up, Razor, you fucking incel. His name is Robert Poulsen, I have a proof. Fuck you, Razor, you heckin conspiracy theorist. Everyone who thinks his name was Eric not Robert is a far-right extremist and incel and, and and... 

Pure desperation when they cite Evan Todd who was nearly murdered being a little angry about that. They never cite shit from before the attack, which is the point. If bullying was on their minds, rather than the victims minds after the confusion of the attack, it would be all over their journals. Something from before the attack.

Not to mention Evan was an underclassman, a chubby sophomore, who is not bullying seniors.

Evan also proves the influence of the video game Blood by mentioning Eric's voodoo doll. The vidya is what exists before the attack, not perpetual locker shoving or the stories from after.

"Science about school shooting" lol at the appeal to lab coat authority


PS this was in effect a takeover of the school, an active bombing with video game weapons, not run of the mill "active shooter" influenced by what the TV said about columbine in the first place. Again the appeal to after the attack when the relevant info is before.

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

What relevance does this have here? To understand the causes and prevention of school shootings we need to look at forensic psychology and criminology, not anthropology. I've cited several academic papers by independent psychs (not affiliated with either the FBI or Cullen) to prove my point. I linked a paper on researchgate above by completely different psychologists (not Langman) who reach the same conclusion that you completely ignores. It isn't a conspiracy.

In a group composed of 9 psychopaths and 1 mentally healthy individual, which one would be bullied, pushed to suicide and therefore have a motive for a mass shooting ?

The bullied is always the one who bears the last difference among a conformist group: the cripple, the stutterer, the hunchback, the redhead, the smart one (statistics show that the more intelligent kids are more likely to be bullied*), the dumb one, the ugliest one, the most beautiful one, the healthy one if the group is sick... and ultimately, if no difference can be found, the bullied is just elected at random, drawn by lot.

That's why it is useless to focus on the mental health of the shooters. Psychologists are of no use because neither the phenomenon of bullying appeared in the US in the second half of the XXth century, nor the bullied taking revenge, they existed since the dawn of time. Do you know what is a "toro bravo"? It is the very one bull who killed his tormentor... a kind of extraordinary who stuns the lynching mob. The Aztec had a rite where a victim had to fight a warrior with mock weapons, and when the victims didn't fight with enough motivation, the mob was disappointed, they wanted the victim of the persecution to fight back like for real. Sometimes the group is stunned by the reaction of its victim, sometimes the mob look forward his reaction... There are hundreds of examples. It has nothing to do with the mental health of the bullied.

And what about the bullies' mental health? Is it healthy that a group elects a victim and unanimously agrees to its persecution until his death by suicide or other means?

You are wrong when using the word "conspiracy", it is not about conspiracy but about unanimity, pack spirit, gregarious instinct. Psychologists do not escape the attraction of the herd. Like Jordan Peterson, they calculate their chances, they lecture the bullied, they lecture the crucified... "Have you taken full advantage of the opportunities offered to you ?" tells Jordan Peterson to Jesus Christ and to all the victims of harassment, persecution, bullying,  lynching, human sacrifice in the history of mankind. "Are you working hard on your career ?" tells Jordan Peterson to Jesus Christ and to all the scapegoats... Well that Canadian man is a fraud, no doubt, like many of his colleagues. The knowledge about bullying and school shootings of an artist like Ruben Ostlund is infinitely superior to all Jordan Petersons and Peter Langmans, watch The Square (2017):

The science about bullying/school shooting is at its highest. I didn't find the complete scene on youtube, but it's a masterpiece, outsmarting any "psychologists" trying to put the blame on the shooter and prudently ignoring the role of the mob.

Charles


* It means that there is a social crackdown on the brilliant and most intelligent individuals. And that breakthroughs in the historical evolution of humanity are related to some decrease of the bullying. At some periods the "jocks" are tamed down, the group's attention is diverted from the "nerds" who are not killed: then they can organise irrigation, fertilizers, metallurgy, antibiotics, courts... civilization in a word. Bullying is pulling humanity backwards from evolution. And the more you consent to bullying, the more you jeopardize our civilized inheritance.

Don't discuss with them. Zortha and cakeman are trolls.

'"Bullying began in the US"
Just ignore all the evidence to the contrary without addressing them. You should publish a book because you've got it figured out.
Anyways, you're not looking for a serious discussion bro and I wasted my time biting the bait. Congratulations.

Zortha wrote:

'"Bullying began in the US"

What are you talking about ? I wrote:

"neither the phenomenon of bullying appeared in the US in the second half of the XXth century, nor the bullied taking revenge, they existed since the dawn of time".

Can't you read?

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Don't discuss with them. Zortha and cakeman are trolls.

Thanks.

Zortha wrote:

'"Bullying began in the US"
Just ignore all the evidence to the contrary without addressing  them. You should publish a book because you've got it figured out.
Anyways, you're not looking for a serious discussion bro and I wasted my time biting the bait. Congratulations.

Cola can is red and Pepsi is blue
Zortha fap to E&D nudes to find out the truth

Saint George wrote:

Zortha wrote:

'"Bullying began in the US"

What are you talking about ? I wrote:

"neither the phenomenon of bullying appeared in the US in the second half of the XXth century, nor the bullied taking revenge, they existed since the dawn of time".

Can't you read?

Where did I say or imply that bullying was a US phenomenon? I stated that upwards to 60% of students are ever bullied in school in the US but next to nil become school shooters, otherwise there'd be a shitton of more school shootings.

Anyways you've stated that the reason why they didn't mention harassment as the conclusive reason, and that the exoneration of peers and multiple statements where they say nobody is at fault was because they didn't want to be seen as 'weak', and with vulnerabilities. I pointed how this is pure copium as they mention multiple embarrassing insecurities and vulnerabilities in their personal writings. And you cite the remark by Evan Todd as proof when I pointed out that he was referring to TCM members and not the pair.
I also cited another paper by other researchers to prove my point: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That you conveniently hand waved away and went 'nuh-uh' without addressing it. You're not looking for a serious conversation at all. Please do go off about bullying in the fucking Sentinelese and or some garbage and never address any of my points though.

QuestionMark wrote:

Zortha wrote:

No, it's not comparable to the 9/11 hijackers, doofus. Al Qaeda was consistent in stating the motivation was due to US foreign policy and the targets reflected those. They didn't state multiple times that it had nothing to do with such policies; nobody is to blame; and then chose targets that had nothing to do with the US government. If they did THEN it would be comparable to E & D.

I find this quite funny because Langman - who you repeatedly cite and echo - wrote an article calling Osama bin Laden a psychopath with psychotic features. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Nowhere does it state he was a 'psychopath' or 'psychotic'. He said he had psychopathology and his personality consisted of traits like being avoidant, compulsive, masochistic, paranoid, sadistic, antisocial, and narcissistic; they are the same personality traits found in political & ideological mass murderers such as Breivik, McVeigh, and Roof. That's not the same as saying someone has a psychopathic or psychotic personality, and in fact he says on page 1-2 that most mass murderers who are motived by politics and ideology aren't psychotic.

The cope of the lulzcow to say its trolling to point out that blaming bullying is an inference or intepretation, not a fact, and one based on ignoring the main bombs, like the students who experienced the attack and the news the first two days. The pre massacre evidence, the only evidence that matters, what isnt colored by the media and the suppression of bombs, is very thin indeed.

For the first two days it was figured the targets were "jocks/bullies" to explain the white guys, blacks to explain Isaiah, and Christians to explain the girls. That story died when the bombs were made public, and again by the journals. Everybody was a target. The only reason it isn't dead is people like Randy Brown are stuck by trauma in the first two days.

Evan was the sophomore bullied by seniors with guns who later said not much more than that his potential murderers were big doodooheads.

Hush up boys

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I discovered the sad truth about your ex-gf. She fucked a n1gger right before she had sex with you and infected your brain with AIDS.

A big one for team blame the bullies to swallow is the "white hats" is likely due to imagining tbe victims as DOOM zombie NPCs, as they said they would, and which have green hair one uses as a target. First person shooter enemies are also always standing up.

Not to mention the perps owned black hats and the whole black hat bad guy white hat good guy Western trope.

cakeman wrote:

the victims as DOOM zombie NPCs 

You're the biggest victim, zombie and NPC at the same time.

Bullying has been ritualized in many archaic societies. Here are two examples among hundreds.

1. Tribes in Papua

In these societies, they don't have the idea of natural death, all deaths are caused by the action of a evil individual (a "weird" one). When a member of the tribe dies whether it's of pneumonia, cancer, heart attack, the tribe goes on a hunt for the guilty, they have to kill him before he kills again. So a member of the tribe has to be elected and hunted and killed by the anxious mob. That is to say an individual becomes the object of the tribe's hatred without any reason, they all turn against him, the all is at war against a one:



The group corners the individual and "he struggled but then he died". In a last stand, the individual hunted by his own society tries to fight back. Most often, the group finds that the individual they have to hunt and kill is a child, but sometimes it can be an adult male, and then there is a fight. They come to lynch him but he can strike back. It's a war of all against one, the outcome is known in advance, but the victim can always find a way to hit one of his tormentors.

What is the meaning of questioning the mental health of the individual who struck a deadly blow at the mob of his tormentors?

2. Villages in Spain

In these societies, traditions dating form the neolithic are still vivid. Each year, they have a festival where they hunt and kill a victim. They substitute an animal victim to the human one, but the structure and the meaning is the same. And here too, the victim struggles and can strike  deadly blows at the mob of tormentors:



In the village of Manganeses de la Polvorosa, they had a variant: they threw a goat from the top of the church. This kind of ritual is known in many other societies (fall from a cliff, a tree, a tower...). And the mob waiting for the goat to be thrown into the void chanted: "la puta de la cabra, la puta de la cabra"... "bitch goat, whore goat"... They insulted their victim... In another village, a donkey was battered by the mob: they threw punches at him and spit at him.

In all these rites, the structure is the same: a war of all versus one, a mob harassing an individual (the warriors, the "jocks", in first line and the all rest supporting in second line), nobody comes to help the victim, the victim is hunted, cornered, "teased" that is to say tortured and insulted, the final outcome is death, and sometimes the victim strikes a blow back at the mob.

When psychologists try to explain school shootings with mental health issues, they just join the mob of tormentors. The final conclusion of Peter Langman is a religious one, perfectly matching all these archaic rites of bullying and harassment, he defined Harris and Klebold as devilish terrorists. According to him they wanted to "play God", which means according to western culture paradigms: they were Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, the Demon. But demon terrorist is also the precise definition given by the Papuan tribes to the individual they elect as medication for their anxiety. Peter Langman therefore found a way to regress to the level of the archaic superstitions of the Papuan tribes. He could have just noted that victims of harassment pushed to suicide returned a few blows before dying, which is the rational analysis, no, he preferred to join the superstitious Papuan tribes and their demon terrorist... What a fraud!

Charles

Going on about the Ouagadougou tribe doesn't quite answer anything with this case and seems a diversionary ink shot.

And why would anyone dislike knowing the video game influence about white hats? Seems they dislike its ruining the cope that their victims had it coming with another option.

Marblecakeman wrote:

Going on about the Ouagadougou tribe doesn't quite answer anything with this case and seems a diversionary ink shot.

Don't hate n1ggers, it's a politically incorrect crime against Cullen's narrative.

Who the fuck sperged out this time?

NEXT STEP UP wrote:

Who the fuck sperged out this time?

Zortha and cakeman with their "muhhh E&D weren't bullied, they were evil white males inspired by Doom" shit.

cakeman wrote:

Going on about the Ouagadougou tribe doesn't quite answer anything with this case and seems a diversionary ink shot.

And why would anyone dislike knowing the video game influence about white hats? Seems they dislike its ruining the cope that  their victims had it coming with another option.

I'm going to touch you bro

So, when bullying happens in a community of adults, it is very difficult to prevent its outcome. Anthropologist Nathan Wachtel witnessed how authorities are reluctant to confront the mob of bullies and lynchers. In his book Gods and Vampires (University of Chicago Press, 1994), he described the lynching of a poor guy by a community of peasants in the remote mountains of Bolivia: the police hesitated to confront the mob of peasants. Similar events are documented in Africa, the police armed with assault guns struggling to extract the victim of villagers: they had to join the victim at the center of the circle of villagers to save him... the most dangerous move ever as they could be lynched themselves. The balance of power of the furious all against one leaving no hope to the one. There is also a brilliant movie: Fury (1936) by Fritz Lang with American actor Spencer Tracy, showing a powerless police against a tribal mob of American lynchers:



But when bullying occurs in a school, among a community of kids or teenagers, then there is no excuse for the principal and the teachers. The families of bullied victims Harris and Klebold and the families of strike back victims should put the principal on trial: he was the one in charge of peace inside his school. There is no excuse in the case of school bullying and school shootings because the ones in charge can easily prevent violence: the principal and the teachers are the adults embodying authority. They receive wages, they earn their money as educators: they bear full responsibility for any violence happening in their school, for both bullying and revenge of the bullied.

It is easy to prevent school violence, lazy adults just have to do their job, they have to forbid violence, to be the defenders of the bullied who are most often their most intelligent students. No excuses for the lazy principal of Columbine High School and for all the lazy teachers who preferred to be blind and not to address the the ordeal of Harris and Klebold, and of Seung-Hui Cho, and of all other bullied who politely committed suicide in their bedrooms and garages. It is easy because in that case, in the case of a school as a community, the balance of power between the kids and the adults is always in favor of the adult educators: so no excuses for the lazy adult educators.

Both the families of suicided Harris and Klebold and the families of the killed teenagers of Columbine High School, they should come together as one plaintif against the principal: he was in charge and in failed as a professional educator, and Harris, Klebold, the killed students, both the bullied and the bullies, they were all kids under his authority of adult principal and his adult teachers. The principal deserves years of prison, and his lazy teachers accomplices who witnessed bullying in their classrooms or in the cafeteria, playground and corridors, and did nothing, deserve the same.

In the book of Job, there is a long description of the persecution of a man by his own community, I won't discuss here the all book, but just remind a quite brutal sentence, a one told by the bullies to their victim: "What sickness drives you to defend yourself?" (16:3) If sometimes, communities take pleasure at the spectacle of their victim trying to fight back (because it comforts them in their violence, just like Emma Gonzalez they love to feel they were right to persecute), here they even accuse him of defending himself. And they call his attempts a "sickness"... Peter Langman, Jordan Peterson, and Frank DeAngelis, they all speak the words of the bullies, they actively contribute to the begetting of school shooters, therefore they should be dismissed from any position related to youth and education.


Charles

Zortha wrote:

No, it's not comparable to the 9/11 hijackers, doofus. Al Qaeda was consistent in stating the motivation was due to US foreign policy and the targets reflected those. They didn't state multiple times that it had nothing to do with such policies; nobody is to blame; and then chose targets that had nothing to do with the US government. If they did THEN it would be comparable to E & D.

I find this quite funny because Langman - who you repeatedly cite and echo - wrote an article calling Osama bin Laden a psychopath with psychotic features. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I was stunned by a sentence in Regina Huerter's report:

• "One identified the unwritten rules of survival in the school as: 'don't screw with anyone who can beat you up, don't look at jocks in the eye, bump them or hit on their girlfriend and don't walk in the wrong area, especially the math hall.'"
  

How is it possible that "jocks" prevented the "brains" to access math hall? And that "Columbine is run by 'jocks', and if you weren't a 'jock you didn't fit.'" Isn't school an institution dedicated to knowledge and learning?

There is here a confusion which needs to be cleared. When itaimpaulista wrote "Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold was not bullied, they actually jockers!", he was obviously wrong but he raised an essential question.

As I wrote earlier, the ageless structure of bullying is the following:

In all these rites, the structure is the same: a war of all versus one, a mob harassing an individual (the warriors, the "jocks", in first line and the all rest supporting in second line), nobody comes to help the victim, the victim is hunted, cornered, "teased" that is to say tortured and insulted, the final outcome is death, and sometimes the victim strikes a blow back at the mob.

But a school is not any society, it's not a society in the general sense where all social roles are mixed together: priest, warrior, producer, peasant, craftsman, artist, merchant, sailor, etc. A school is a society specially dedicated to knowledge, and here the jocks are not the heroic warriors as in society in the general sense, here they are the patch, the anomaly, they are not at the right place. In the society of all the students focused on learning and knowledge, they are the incongruity, and therefore they are the most likely to be bullied. They are insecure, they understand that they're always at risk to be looked at as the minority of "retards"... they fear eye contact with other students... they live in fear and have no other way out than to inspire fear.

In my country in Europe, we don't mix athletes with other students, athletes have their own specialized schools where they can focus on sport while the others can focus on knowledge. In non-specialized schools, there is PE, but no local teams of soccer or basketball, and if so, they are not taken seriously, they remain very secondary, the focus of the whole school community always remaining on knowledge. Football is a huge industry here that generates billions, but no high school has to support a group of teenagers whose future careers in the industry are at stake, they attend specialized schools focused on sports and training centers financed by professional teams.

In the US, schools pay a double price for the career of professional athletes: they spend money for their education, and they suffer the insecure position of muscular teenagers trying to exist through violence inside a knowledge oriented community. Professional leagues like the NFL, the NBA, should pay for the education of professional athletes. Because now American society puts the burden of entertainment and circus games costs on all the students of high schools...

So when Regina Huerter noted:

• "In spring of 1998, Coach Lowry called a meeting of the football team. He said he had received a letter from the district - they weren't bringing enough people to the games to use the larger Jeffco stadium - so they were going to have to use Trail Blazer stadium. Coach Lowry stated that he wanted all team members to treat everyone with respect in order to increase attendance. It was reported that several students had gone to Lowry questioning why they should attend the games when members of the football team were harassing students."
  

she had a good lead. And the students' question could be further explored: why should they ever attend the games when they are currently devoting their youth to knowledge and learning? Why such a hype about athletes? Can't the major leagues of the sport industry pay for selecting and training their future employees? Don't they make enough money? Why should the burden of early training and selection be supported by high schools?

And we are back to Frank DeAngelis, the incompetent and mediocre principal, but very motivated coach for the baseball and football teams. Probably he was insecure with the role of principal and was more comfortable hanging out with the jocks... sharing their insecurity, the fundamental doubt wether they were legit in such a place... Maybe DeAngelis occupied the chair of principal the same as the jocks occupied the math hall... And so no, Klebold who was enlisted in the Challenging High Intellectual Potential Students program for gifted children was not a "jocker", he deserved a place in the school society more than any athlete, he was more legit than any athlete and probably more than the mediocre principal himself. It's really a tragic waste.

So with bullying, sport industry cutting costs at the expense of schools, and legal issues raised in DeAngelis' first trial, we have all the components for the tragedy... and both mental health and gun control are completely out of the equation.

The other library quote that leads to imagined constant bullying is " this is for the last four years" which Bree clarifies was " for last year".  Without that and the white hats quote being a DOOM reference, and the bombs being hidden the first two days, there'd be no bullying fanfiction like the above. Based on nothing else.

It's part of the attack that needs explaining like any other, what about it makes some people need the bullying fanfiction. Either they still have the story from the first two days like Randy, or to cope need the story from the first two days. It's just as stuck in the past and just as silly coping that Eric shot Dylan.

Eric exonerated the school admin and it's just assuming you are right before even looking at the evidence to cope with saying he was lying.

Bullying is still blaming mental illness, just acquired rather than inborn. And it also comes with blaming guns in so far as it ignores the bombs. And silly to have only those options, and neither of the van break in and playing video games irl, which they actually say.

cakeman wrote:

The other library quote that leads to imagined constant bullying is " this is for the last four years" which Bree clarifies was " for last year".  Without that and the white hats quote being a DOOM reference, and the bombs being hidden the first two days, there'd be no bullying fanfiction like the above. Based on nothing else.

It's part of the attack that needs explaining like any other, what about it makes some people need the bullying fanfiction. Either they still have the story from the first two days like Randy, or to cope need the story from the first two days. It's just as stuck in the past and just as silly coping that Eric shot Dylan.

Eric exonerated the school admin and it's just assuming you are right before even looking at the evidence to cope with saying he was lying.

Bullying is still blaming mental illness, just acquired rather than inborn. And it also comes with blaming guns in so far as it ignores the bombs. And silly to have only those options, and neither of the van break in and playing video games irl, which they actually say.

I haven't seen a more r3tarded opinion about E&D motives like the one above.

It's hard to argue with people who have an IQ of 66, but I'll try to tell you once again, for the last time: The school was the SYMBOL OF THEIR FAILURES in relations with peers and that's why they want to blow up the entire school as the symbol of their failures. Bullying, problems with friends (Eric-Brooks quarrel, Dylan's feelings of conspiracy from his friends because a girl started romantic relationship with Zach Heckler etc.), romantic failures etc. Do you understand now or I will have write these words inside your brain?

In a healthy school community, there is only one hierarchy: all adults at the top, all students at the bottom, and the consequence is that everyone "is friendly no matter which clique they are part of". But in schools were the adults fail their mission as educators, there are spontaneous hierarchies emerging among the students. What Melissa Soward was told about bullying: "Deal with it", is told to the entire community of students. And whoever is bullied or at the risk to be bullied has to find his own way to "deal with it": athletes team up and intimidate the students, lone students strike back with guns and shootings... Schools run by lazy adults, where students are left without authority and justice, replicate the violence of the Wild West, they plunge into violence and anarchy.

DeAngelis seriously failed in his mission as Principal...

• "One former student, part of the "in crowd" discussed her past and present view of Columbine. While she was a student, she felt the cliques and bullying were just part of being in school. She doesn't believe that now. Two things have changed her mind. First, her younger sister entered Columbine last year and went from a straight "A" student to failing. No one from the school called to let her parents know for several months until finally a physics teacher called. The sister reported being unhappy. They pulled her from Columbine and enrolled her in Dakota Ridge. Her sister is again flourishing. Her sister told her that everyone at Dakota Ridge is friendly no matter which clique they are part of. (...)"
  

It was not by luck that the girl flourished again in the other high school, there adults were doing their job, there they cared. Soward the special-education student, the anonymous average student, the girl gone "from a straight "A" student to failing" and gifted Klebold driven to suicide, they were all wronged by DeAngelis and his neglect. Such testimonies are devastating, as well as:

• "Finally, the victim told his parents he wanted out of school. At that point, the dad called the school board and that night remembers getting a call from Assistant Principal Pat Patrick. The next morning a meeting was held with Dad, his son, the AP, Principal and the bully. During this meeting they talked and resolved the issue. The solution given by Mr. DeAngelis was to have the two boys stay away from each other. Dad disagreed. He wanted the two to acknowledge each other and say hello as if they meant it. This was decided on. There were no further issues."
  

DeAngelis was a lazy man, he could be satisfied with "two boys stay away from each other", that is to say with anarchy, dissension, revenge, violence, with leaving problems unsolved and waiting to get worse... but the dad showed him what is the job of Principal and what should be the ambition of a Principal: "he wanted the two to acknowledge each other and say hello as if they meant it". DeAngelis didn't finish the work, he didn't care: he botched.

And the mediocre Principal is now considered as a national expert on a matter he completely failed, and still in denial, refusing to take accountability for his failings... The man is a lazy hypocrite, a very ugly character in my opinion. In ancient Europe, when people failed so seriously, with such costly consequences, they entered monasteries where they hoped to be forgotten forever.

According to Emma Gonzalez, the shooting at Parkland justified the bullying they inflicted on Nikolas Cruz: "Since he was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him to hear that he was the shooter. Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him, you didn't know this kid. OK, we did."

But she is not the only one in History to have used such language. There is a 2000 years old precedent, in the 1st century AD:

• "When the plague began to rage in Ephesus, and no remedy sufficed to check it, they sent a deputation to Apollonius, asking him to become physician of their infirmity; and he thought that he ought not to postpone his journey, but said: "Let us go."
  
  And forthwith he was in Ephesus, performing the same feat, I believe, as Pythagoras, who was in Thurii and Metapontum at one and the same moment. He therefore called together the Ephesians, and said: "Take courage, for I will today put a stop to the course of the disease."
  
  And with these words he led the population entire to the the theater, where the image of the Averting god has been set up. And there he saw what seemed an old mendicant artfully blinking his eyes as if blind, as he carried a wallet and a crust of bread in it; and he was clad in rags and was very squalid of countenance. Apollonius therefore ranged the Ephesians around him and said: "Pick up as many stones as you can and hurl them at this enemy of the gods."
  
  Now the Ephesians wondered what he meant, and were shocked at the idea of murdering a stranger so manifestly miserable; for he was begging and praying them to take mercy upon him. Nevertheless Apollonius insisted and egged on the Ephesians to launch themselves on him and not let him go. And as soon as some of them began to take shots and hit him with their stones, the beggar [...] gave them all a sudden glance and his eyes were full of fire. Then the Ephesians recognized that he was a demon, and they stoned him so thoroughly that their stones were heaped into a great cairn around him.
  
  After a little pause Apollonius bade them remove the stones and acquaint themselves with the wild animal they had slain. When therefore they had exposed the object which they thought they had thrown their missiles at, they found that he had disappeared and instead of him there was a hound who resembled in form and look a Molossian dog, but was in size the equal of the largest lion; there he lay before their eyes, pounded to a pulp by their stones and vomiting foam as mad dogs do. Accordingly the statue of the Averting god, Heracles, has been set up over the spot where the ghost was slain." (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Book 4, chapter 10)
  

They lynched a mendicant, a weirdo, at first they hesitated, but when he "gave them all a sudden glance and his eyes were full of fire. Then the Ephesians recognized that he was a demon"... Sounds familiar?

For Apollonius the mendicant throwing an angry look at the lynchers was an "enemy of the gods" causing a raging plague, for Peterson the bullied throwing blows back are "people who wish to slaughter innocents as a form of revenge against god », for Langman they want "to play God by having the power of life and death over others and cause devastation on a large scale"... Our contemporary psychologists make the same old diagnosis as antique physician Apollonius, their "science" is 2000 years obsolete... Peterson and Langman gang up with Apollonius and also with the so-called wise men accusing Job, another enemy of god: "What sickness drives you to defend yourself?"... So, more than 2000 years obsolete: 2500 years obsolete science. The recipe is so old, the diagnosis is so old, they can't be dated...

The Ephesians had their "Molossian demon", Apollonius, Langman and Peterson their "enemy of God", DeAngelis his "Nazis"... they all blamed a social crisis on the one who was only the opportunity to reveal the extent of the crisis. The beggar didn't cause the raging plague, Harris, Klebold, Cruz didn't cause anarchy within their school communities, leading to widespread bullying. Communities are intoxicated and they are looking for a scapegoat, and when the scapegoat retaliates, they shout: "We knew it! We were right! Here is the proof! The Enemy of God! The Nazi!"... And the physician, the charlatan psychologists, the wise men, they utter howls of hatred along with the athletes and with Emma Gonzalez...

supremegentlewoman1991 wrote:

Don't expect him to understand anything, he's Polish

Spoken like a true Hitler-lover!

xDarkRazoR wrote:

Zortha wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (....) made the same arguments as me

Wow, that's the strongest argument I've ever seen.

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


Objectively speaking the smartest person on these forums had made the same claim, thus surely there can be no better form of argumentum ad auctoritatem to be made!

I am the utmost, best informed and ultimate expert on the matter.

Deal with it.