NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.aol.com/article/3-dead-after-santa-opens-fire-at-party/287323

:eek: That's scary.

Ho, ho, ho, merry Christmas!

http://www.ugo.com/movies/fictional-santas/images/robot-santa.jpg

Is this in bad taste?

\begin{bad taste}
We warned you.
We really, REALLY did.

Now, watch this video so it will never happen again:
Rare Exports Inc 2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z4OvK3Vn44)

(people unfamiliar with the fine products of this company may wish to watch Rare Exports Inc (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uUiDDWi8k1o) first)
\end{bad taste}

Damn. This is.. sad:(

\begin{bad taste}
We warned you.
We really, REALLY did.

Now, watch this video so it will never happen again:
Rare Exports Inc 2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z4OvK3Vn44)

(people unfamiliar with the fine products of this company may wish to watch Rare Exports Inc (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uUiDDWi8k1o) first)
\end{bad taste}

Damn. This is.. sad:(

Good God, it's a TeX user. Since when has there been another of those on NationStates?

Good God, it's a TeX user. Since when has there been another of those on NationStates?

May 2004 :p ?
Well longer actually. This isn't my oldest nation.

Ho ho ho. Merry Christmas. Look what Santa brought you:
Death by handgun.
And for the rest of you: death by fire.

http://www.ugo.com/movies/fictional-santas/images/robot-santa.jpg

Is this in bad taste?

probably

I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. It's just like those horror movies, where the murderer(s) don the skewn or maligned attire of a character or archetype that we would normally connote as benign or positive.

I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. It's just like those horror movies, where the murderer(s) don the skewn or maligned attire of a character or archetype that we would normally connote as benign or positive.

Oh I've seen it coming, I've seen it coming a mile away. *nods*

This is what happens when society takes Christ out of Christmas!!! We get left with mas..And that is the first three letters of massacre. You know what else is a coincidence? Santa and Satan are really close in spelling. This holiday is now evil! Good job secular progressives!!!!

Am I a bad person if this sounds kind of heart warming to me?

Jesus fucking whoreknob on a stick, what is going so wrong in our society that the second leading cause of death among women is violence at the hands of ex lovers or husbands? Not to mention the children that often get caught up in these insane murder/suicide scenarios...how poorly are we raising our sons that this ever, even remotely seems like a solution?

I know people don't like to look beyond 'the parents' when it comes to the way that children act out violently, but suddenly upon reaching the age of majority that blame game sort of deflates. So what the fuck are we doing, as a people, even as a group of distinct cultures/political,social beliefs/backgrounds...what the FUCK are we doing that enables this sort of thing to happen with such alarming frequency?

Is it the spirit of vigilantism? I think most cultures have some sort of deep seated respect for the vigilante, in particular when it comes to resistance against the unjust actions of the state, or the inability of said state to protect the 'common man'. Is it some warped version of this? Is it pure, unadulterated misogyny? Inculcated by cultural myths of weakness/power? The Madonna and the whore? The pathetic, and the powerful...the woman who is worthless, yet plots the downfall of the unsuspecting man and must be made to pay? What is it?

Am I a bad person if this sounds kind of heart warming to me?

Yes.

Jesus fucking whoreknob on a stick, what is going so wrong in our society that the second leading cause of death among women is violence at the hands of ex lovers or husbands? Not to mention the children that often get caught up in these insane murder/suicide scenarios...how poorly are we raising our sons that this ever, even remotely seems like a solution?

I know people don't like to look beyond 'the parents' when it comes to the way that children act out violently, but suddenly upon reaching the age of majority that blame game sort of deflates. So what the fuck are we doing, as a people, even as a group of distinct cultures/political,social beliefs/backgrounds...what the FUCK are we doing that enables this sort of thing to happen with such alarming frequency?

We're giving everyone the right to own weapons in a place where everyone has the right to be a parent.

We also live in a society that does a remarkably poor job of dealing with mental issues, especially depression, in males. Guys don't believe that they have a problem because they've been taught since PeeWee football to "shake it off" and they end up with a serious mental issue that would be treatable if they didn't consider it emasculating to tell anyone about it. Then, they end up taking it out on everyone around them, sometimes in long-term abusive relationships, and sometimes in short, violent bursts, like this guy.

We're giving everyone the right to own weapons in a place where everyone has the right to be a parent.

We also live in a society that does a remarkably poor job of dealing with mental issues, especially depression, in males. Guys don't believe that they have a problem because they've been taught since PeeWee football to "shake it off" and they end up with a serious mental issue that would be treatable if they didn't consider it emasculating to tell anyone about it. Then, they end up taking it out on everyone around them, sometimes in long-term abusive relationships, and sometimes in short, violent bursts, like this guy.

First of all, in Canada, firearms are fairly restricted. That doesn't mean you can't get them, particularly in rural areas where rifles for hunting are still allowed...but the gun culture in Canada is very, very different than that in the states. Yet we too have insane rates of violence towards women, with or without firearms. So I don't believe that firearms really are a 'reason'. Whatever weapon a man uses against his former lover, it quite often turns lethal, and banning all such implements of death will alleviate nothing.

Secondly, I agree with your analysis of the ways in which males are subjected to desensitising, and ineffective coping strategies. I think this is a major health issue, not just one of violence. It seems to be changing, but not quite quickly enough.

Before anyone jumps in with some asinine comment about 'oh if they'd been armed they'd be alive now', I'd like to point out that your theories are useless in terms of dealing with underlying gender roles that lead to victimisation and violence. Guns don't solve nuanced problems, and frankly, we're never going to deal with this issue until we actually accept nuance.

This sort of thing is intensely damaging to the psyche of not only females, but also males. This sort of behaviour is condemned by sane people...but the fact of its irrefutable prevalence nonetheless lends itself a sort of inevitability if not legitimacy in the minds of the public at large. We should absolutely be concerned about that.

First of all, in Canada, firearms are fairly restricted. That doesn't mean you can't get them, particularly in rural areas where rifles for hunting are still allowed...but the gun culture in Canada is very, very different than that in the states. Yet we too have insane rates of violence towards women, with or without firearms. So I don't believe that firearms really are a 'reason'. Whatever weapon a man uses against his former lover, it quite often turns lethal, and banning all such implements of death will alleviate nothing.

Secondly, I agree with your analysis of the ways in which males are subjected to desensitising, and ineffective coping strategies. I think this is a major health issue, not just one of violence. It seems to be changing, but not quite quickly enough.

Before anyone jumps in with some asinine comment about 'oh if they'd been armed they'd be alive now', I'd like to point out that your theories are useless in terms of dealing with underlying gender roles that lead to victimisation and violence. Guns don't solve nuanced problems, and frankly, we're never going to deal with this issue until we actually accept nuance.

This sort of thing is intensely damaging to the psyche of not only females, but also males. This sort of behaviour is condemned by sane people...but the fact of its irrefutable prevalence nonetheless lends itself a sort of inevitability if not legitimacy in the minds of the public at large. We should absolutely be concerned about that.

I don't believe that anything involving guns will solve any of the roots of our problems, those need to be solved through, as you said, much more subtle and nuanced means. Considering that guns are probably the least subtle things on the planet, (with the possible exception of Lunatic Goofballs), their removal or multiplication won't do anything to get to the core of violence issues. It is proven, however, that gun control lowers death rates, and, while violence that does not lead to death is in no way acceptable, lower death rates can't really be argued to be a bad thing.

I think that the issues involving men and violence have reached the level of tradition, which is why they are so hard to stamp out. When you consider the fact that 100 years ago, it was still considered fact that men were more intelligent than women, it follows that some men still think of them in that way, and that it is incredibly difficult to dissuade them from their misguided views.

Violence towards women is also an outlet for some men, as I said before, for suppressed emotions, and that can only be changed gradually by raising men to believe that they are allowed to feel pain. I know that many men I know, myself included, despite growing up in very progressive environments, are still sometimes uncomfortable with emotion. This is also deeply traditional, considering that it has it's basis in many, many warrior cultures, and, ultimately, probably in pre-history.

Another issue is the fact that women who grow up in this society subconsciously teach their daughters that being treated poorly is acceptable. I know a family, for example, in which the father cheated on the mother twice, and constantly berated her about nearly everything, to the point where she became depressed and became an alcoholic. She stayed with this man, out of the hope that things would get better. While I understand that it is extremely difficult to extricate oneself from a situation like that, especially from what was once a loving marriage, her two daughters will grow up believing that it is okay for them to be treated like that, because their mother was, and she didn't do anything about it.

Not to mention that when you take kids to a Christmas party you don't take your gun with you because you don't expect that people will be taking guns to parties that kids could be at.

This guy was seeking to target the defenseless and unsuspecting.

I don't believe that anything involving guns will solve any of the roots of our problems, those need to be solved through, as you said, much more subtle and nuanced means. Considering that guns are probably the least subtle things on the planet, (with the possible exception of Lunatic Goofballs), their removal or multiplication won't do anything to get to the core of violence issues. It is proven, however, that gun control lowers death rates, and, while violence that does not lead to death is in no way acceptable, lower death rates can't really be argued to be a bad thing. Granted. The fact that you've mentioned gun control as a very small part of the overall 'solution' persuades me, but I do have to mention that my own studies of the issue have shown little correlation between gun control and lower death rates, sorry. In particular, you have states like Switzerland and Israel with high rates of gun ownership and very low rates of citizen-related gun deaths. I believe that in certain societies, gun ownership is a problem, and gun restriction could be a partial solution, but I recognise this is not a universal truth.

I think that the issues involving men and violence have reached the level of tradition, which is why they are so hard to stamp out. While I agree completely with the heart of your statement, I would like to contest the temporal distinction here. I do not think that the issues involving men and violence have evolved to anything. That would suggest growth towards what we see now. In fact, what we see is tradition at its worst. If anything, the growth we have achieved has allowed us to recognise domestic violence as a legitimate issue that society needs to deal with...in many societies around the world this is still not the case. It is simply seen as the way things are.

I make this distinction because it is disheartening to feel as though one's society is growing into something horrendous. I know it often feels that way. Traditions are spurned, new ways are found, old ideals are left by the wayside...but ultimately I do not find these changes to be bad. Despite the setbacks, the Git'mos, the Bushes, the violent fools who still target their former loved ones, our societies by and large have progressed. Keep that in mind always.


When you consider the fact that 100 years ago, it was still considered fact that men were more intelligent than women, it follows that some men still think of them in that way, and that it is incredibly difficult to dissuade them from their misguided views. I'd love to agree with your 100 years here, but studies of legal cases dealing with the discriminatory practices of paying women less (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=28&lg=_e&isruling=0) only decades old have confirmed the sort of general belief that women are overall less capable than men. It is, unfortunately, not such an antiquated notion. Nonetheless, I don't think that detracts from your point.

Violence towards women is also an outlet for some men, as I said before, for suppressed emotions, and that can only be changed gradually by raising men to believe that they are allowed to feel pain. I know that many men I know, myself included, despite growing up in very progressive environments, are still sometimes uncomfortable with emotion. This is also deeply traditional, considering that it has it's basis in many, many warrior cultures, and, ultimately, probably in pre-history.
Agreed again. There is massive social conditioning at work, that goes beyond even the most progressive of parents. I also very much agree that this is a gendered condition. As a woman, growing up, I was always very 'butch'. Cute and small as I am. So I aspired to male role models, whilst my very transgendered brother aspired to the females. And what I learned as a 'hardcore' chick, was that emotions are weakness, not strength. The ability to not give a shit was valued above all else. You kept yourself guarded at all times. And I'm not fooling myself...I wasn't nearly as 'masculine' as the guys I grew up with. Those expectations are enough to suffocate a person.

Absolutely this is harmful medically. It's been proven again and again. Disproportionately men suffer from stress-related diseases. What distresses me is that the number of women suffering from the same ailments is on the rise. This doesn't suggest that we've recognised the problem and dealt with it...it suggests we've elevated the 'masculine' to the 'desirable' despite all the drawbacks associated with such upbringing. How fucked up.

Another issue is the fact that women who grow up in this society subconsciously teach their daughters that being treated poorly is acceptable. I know a family, for example, in which the father cheated on the mother twice, and constantly berated her about nearly everything, to the point where she became depressed and became an alcoholic. She stayed with this man, out of the hope that things would get better. Oh god yes. As I said, I grew up 'butch' but even I wasn't immune to the gendered 'fix it' syndrome. Women fix, men resist. Men see clearly, women are clouded by hormones. It's to the point where this is still accepted as truth. Hillary Clinton cries...is she fit for office? What if she didn't cry? Is her womb dead? Maybe she isn't really a woman.

It's disgusting. It's harmful to both genders, no matter how you look at it. Yes, men disproportionately benefit from such bullshit, economically at least. But in terms of health? Overall enjoyment of life? No. Fucking. Way. We ALL lose.


While I understand that it is extremely difficult to extricate oneself from a situation like that, especially from what was once a loving marriage, her two daughters will grow up believing that it is okay for them to be treated like that, because their mother was, and she didn't do anything about it.

And that, my friend, is what caused me to finally leave my abusive husband. Because when you're in an abusive relationship you have to look at the good things, or you'd never stay. And no matter how abusive the relationship, whether we're talking romantic, political, or ideological, there are good things. Nothing is ever 100% terrible. It's easy to think that you can fix things...in fact, I think it's essential that we as humans, not just men or women, believe that to be true. But it can never work (and I apologise for all the sentences begun with prepositions) if both parties aren't invested in the renewal.

In any case, what I mean is... the need to teach my girls about happiness enabled me to leave my husband. I could lie to myself, but I could not lie to them.

My mother raised wonderful sons. I wish I had sons I could raise so excellently, because I truly believe it would mean one less man in this world held up to herculean and impossible standards, one less man deprived of his humanity, and one less man prone to the abuse of women out of a disjointed sense of frustration.

Instead, I have two daughters who I have to teach to recognise the signs of a man who is unhealthy. I don't believe that they will be able to heal anyone, but at the very least, they'll learn how to avoid the unhealthy. It's something. I only wish I'd learned as well.

from the article quoted in the OP:

"It was not an amicable divorce," police Lt. Pat Buchanan said.

I wouldn't have expected such a british-style understatement from a LA policeman. Not even the chaps from Scotland Yard could do better than that.

from the article quoted in the OP:

"It was not an amicable divorce," police Lt. Pat Buchanan said.

I wouldn't have expected such a british-style understatement from a LA policeman. Not even the chaps from Scotland Yard could do better than that.

Yes, I thought that sort of understatement was alien to the Merkins :D

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/silent-night-deadly-night-movie-poster-tm.jpg

It's what came to mind. But these two work too:

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/santasslay-tm.jpg

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/christmas-evil-movie-poster-tm.jpg

PS

Do note that the Santas in those films are primarily known for stabbing or chopping at people. For some reason large hairy men are more scary with melee weapons rather than firearms, even though the facts now clearly demonstrate that the latter are more effective, especially if they are trained in sabotage, arson, etc.

But the conclusion to take to heart is: people don't kill people, Psychotic Santas kill people.

What's next??? Killer Easter Bunnies????

What's next??? Killer Easter Bunnies????

Read Sluggy Freelance ;)

Yes.I am a bad person. *dances*