Post: #51

(06-13-2015 10:06 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 09:59 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Basil,

Your opinion concerning telling the manager is a fairly common one, but disregarding the thread topic I'm curious as to why you do it, since, I'm the type of person who basically never complains. I just don't go back to a place I don't like.

What's the point of complaining? Having worked in a restaurant, you're not going to fix the problem, its the culture of the restaurant, so why bother? It won't fix the bad food or the shitty service to complain.

You could get restitution. You could get the person fired or disciplined. Or perhaps you posted it in a Yelp review or something, and thereby inform others. I've almost never regretted speaking up, I've only regretted staying quiet. If I see someone do something wrong, I'd rather see it addressed and not have it happen again to someone else.

I don't think I've ever done it at a restaurant, but I'm not opposed to it.

I did a brief stint in retail. Based on my experience, it all depends on the manager. If he makes it a priority to have good customer service, he'll do something. If he doesn't give a shit, he probably won't do anything.

Keeping quiet though will certainly do nothing. The squeaky wheel doesn't always get the grease, but the quiet one never will.

If you don't ask for something, you won't get it. If you make a demand, you have a chance of actually receiving it.

Yesterday I was at Chiptole and they were out of vegetables. So I waited 10 minutes for them to cook some more. As soon as they were ready, they ran out of chicken. Now I waited 10 more minutes until there was more chicken. I waited 20 minutes for a burrito bowl, about 10x the normal wait. I asked the girl behind the counter if the bowl would be full price, due to the wait. She said yes but then pulled out a gift card for a free burrito and gave it to me.

I got a $500 refund from a moving company after I posted a scathing review of their horrible moving service online.

If you don't speak up, things won't ever get any better for you.

Post: #52

SJWs go hysterical over this thread:

Post: #53

LOL, they quoted me.

This is surreal.

Post: #54

+1, You finally made the big time. You are news worthy!

Now really, why the fuck would they make a 11 minute video about some godamn anonymous comments on an internet forum?

edit; skipping around, samseau gets mentioned too! 8:35

Post: #55

I do honestly feel kind of bad, because the wording of that post could give the impression (as they desperately try to insinuate) that I support murder or violence, which I absolutely don't and I don't think anyone around here does.

Post: #56

(06-16-2015 11:17 PM)Tex Pro Wrote:  SJWs go hysterical over this thread:

These clowns are ridiculous. This Ana chick practically has a meltdown over thread comments.

Props to Ziltoid and Samseau.

Post: #57

(06-16-2015 11:17 PM)Tex Pro Wrote:  SJWs go hysterical over this thread:

Lol if I agree with Futrelle, do I get banned?

Futrelle: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/06/14...blame-him/

(06-16-2015 11:38 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  I do honestly feel kind of bad, because the wording of that post could give the impression (as they desperately try to insinuate) that I support murder or violence, which I absolutely don't and I don't think anyone around here does.

You condoned it more or less, in a sort of "who could blame him?" way.

Post: #58

The woman was annoying, but I agree with them on the basic premise that those comments were ridiculous and unfounded. I wish they would have pointed out that it's not just that all "MRAs" agree but that not even everyone in this forum or thread agreed.

I also don't believe the woman would be so vehement if feminists said this - feminists say this shit all the time.

That being said, it has become clear that many people involved in this "movement," or whatever you want to call it, have zero qualms with making a lot of the same mistakes extreme feminists make. That's a tragedy but unfortunately the case any time you're dealing with people associating in groups around a cause or idea.

For the most part, groups of people cannot be trusted to keep a level head.

Post: #59

(06-16-2015 11:38 PM)Ziltoid Wrote:  I do honestly feel kind of bad, because the wording of that post could give the impression (as they desperately try to insinuate) that I support murder or violence, which I absolutely don't and I don't think anyone around here does.

That's great and all, but if this is true, you should take care to choose your words more wisely then.

Quote:Sad to say I'm finding it hard to blame him.

How can the above quote be intrepreted in any other way? This wasn't a desparate insinuation, as you claim - it was the impression (and a quite clear one) that you gave.

Perhaps a mistake, and we all make them, but you get judged by what you write (not just by "outsiders" but by others right here in our group), so it's always best to think about what you say before you say it if you don't want to be taken wrong.

Post: #60

(06-16-2015 11:41 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  The woman was annoying, but I agree with them on the basic premise that those comments were ridiculous and unfounded. I wish they would have pointed out that it's not just that all "MRAs" agree but that not even everyone in this forum or thread agreed.

I also don't believe the woman would be so vehement if feminists said this - feminists say this shit all the time.

That being said, it has become clear that many people involved in this "movement," or whatever you want to call it, have zero qualms with making a lot of the same mistakes extreme feminists make. That's a tragedy but unfortunately the case any time you're dealing with people associating in groups around a cause or idea.

For the most part, groups of people cannot be trusted to keep a level head.

I've googled it but have not found, a documented psychological effect by where when you isolate people who think alike, the discourse becomes progressively more radical. So say, a mixed group, to only liberals, to only hard left liberals. While it's somewhat logical, I think there's a sense that people feel they must kowtow to the prevailing wisdom, and that if, as in our example, being left wing is good, being extremely left wing is better. If people are gathered together on the basis of a single value, be it liberalism or opposition to feminism, extreme defenders of that value may prevail, while those who disagree fall silent...

Post: #61

I was going for a sentiment more along the lines of what Samseau said, about him simply lacking coping mechanisms and resorting to a desperate act, not entirely different from the tons of men that commit suicide annually.
But yeah, you and Basil are right. I screwed up. Lesson learned.

Sorry for making us look like dorks, guys.

Post: #62

^ For what it's worth, I'm not in support of Sameau's conclusions either.

Not trying to pick on you specifically.

Anyways, I'm not so much worried about some outside observer thinking we "look like dorks" as I am people really falling for the extreme lines of thought. Could care less what some opinion piece thinks as long as we're actually evolving here. And it does take true character to realize when you may have gone overboard and reassess.

Post: #63

Ok, enough Oprah, hand holding over this thread. I think Roosh hit the nail on the head with this comment.

(06-13-2015 02:35 PM)Roosh Wrote:  No need to jump to conclusions. We don't know if the allegations are true or not, but it was enough to spur him to murder. A failure to ask why, on the part of society, will lead to more events like this.

Post: #64

^ Oprah hand holding? Exactly who do you think you're trying to shame, partner?

I respect Roosh and his opinions. And he's right about asking questions. But he does not think for me.

And there's a difference between asking questions and jumping to conclusions, as he pointed out.

Anyhow, if I were to define groupthink behavior, it would start with wielding the forum owner's posts as a conversation stopper when someone expresses or supports a different view.

Post: #65

LOL! Its not a conversation stopper, just acknowledging that crying excessively over differing opinions is pointless.

Post: #66

^You call it crying excessively - I call it discussing.

You're not going to find a thread on this forum where everyone agrees. That's kind of the nature of a forum in the first place.

Post: #67

There are some cool mall cops, but a good portion of them think way too highly of themselves. Since everyone else has come up with a theory here's mine:

Someone earlier compared him to an abused puppy. Someone that would try to get close to anyone who was nice to them. When he first meets this girl, she is probably courteous and engages him in small talk. This is natural, as anyone would want to be kind towards someone who may need to help them out in the future. Since she is more attractive than his wife, he takes common niceness, and confuses it for attraction. I would know, I've been there.

There probably came a point where he tried to subtly make a move. Something along the lines of "We should hang out after work". She refuses. A few days later, he tries again. This time she tells him that she's not interested. Possibly even telling him not to speak to her anymore. After the third attempt, she goes to HR. This may not be the first time he's done this sort of thing.

He may not have seen himself as doing anything wrong. Then again, socially awkward people never do. I wouldn't call him mentally ill. If I had to guess, he's probably average/below average intelligence. In the immediacy of his emotions, he wasn't able to compose himself. In a moment of rage, he destroyed two lives.

---------------

With that said, I found the meltdown in the video above to be heartwarming. Is it really that bad to ask a cynical question about something where there isn't full information? Sure, some of the theories put forward were a bit outlandish, but they were refuted and discussed with grace. No need for Preparation H here.




Edit: After re-reading some of the last few posts before mine, I may have spoken too soon on the Preparation H.

Post: #68

(06-17-2015 12:15 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  With that said, I found the meltdown in the video above to be heartwarming. Is it really that bad to ask a cynical question about something where there isn't full information? Sure, some of the theories put forward were a bit outlandish, but they were refuted and discussed with grace. No need for Preparation H here.

Edit: After re-reading some of the last few posts before mine, I may have spoken too soon on the Preparation H.

^ After reading your post, I'm not sure if you know what a "cynical question" is.

Post: #69

(06-17-2015 12:23 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 12:15 AM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  With that said, I found the meltdown in the video above to be heartwarming. Is it really that bad to ask a cynical question about something where there isn't full information? Sure, some of the theories put forward were a bit outlandish, but they were refuted and discussed with grace. No need for Preparation H here.

Edit: After re-reading some of the last few posts before mine, I may have spoken too soon on the Preparation H.

^ After reading your post, I'm not sure if you know what a "cynical question" is.

I assume he meant the first half of my initial post.
Which I still stand by, workplace harassment allegations have shown to be about as credible as rape allegations. 9 to 1 odds the harassment ends up being something trivial and stupid if it's substantiated at all. Worst case scenario he probably annoyed her, but how exactly? As a short nerdy guy guy he was punching above his weight in terms of the girl he snagged and wifed up a mere few months ago. I don't buy he was stalking or even casually hitting on female employees.

Where exactly was this "don't annoy coworkers or get fired" policy at the jobs I've held? Would have come in handy.

Post: #70

Ziltoid, you really shouldn't spend more then 2 seconds thinking about how Ana Kasparian perceives your comments. Nothing you have written would have made a difference, she came looking for "dirt" and she would have found it one way or the other. It's the Young Turks for crying out loud!

Post: #71

I won't be losing any sleep over what The Young Armenian Holocaust Deniers or David Fatrelle think of my posts, I just like this place a lot and am uncomfortable with the idea that I contributed to it being seen as some breeding ground for violence and mental illness like PUAHate was.

Post: #72

The Daily News is reporting that he was a gun nut (which we already knew) and that his harassment took the form of leaving notes on the woman's car -- which might seem harmless but can come off as disturbing.

And as for sexual harassment, I know guys who were accused of it for putting their hand on someone's shoulder and other guys for putting their hand down a woman's pants. The second one got fired. But neither ended up murdering. That's the difference here -- and where the focus in this discussion should be.

As I said earlier, I think the manosphere called this one wrong. I'd mentioned I got a Charles Manson vibe and that's something that comes across even stronger in the Daily News pics.

Instead of seeing this as a case of a man who was a victim of "hypergamy" or Beta rage or some other predetermined manosphere mold, I think we need to rewrite the script, so to speak.

This seems to be the story of a nice girl who chose an underemployed bad boy psychopath instead of the dozens of nice guys who probably tried for her. How many gainfully-employed men without gun collections were knocking on her door? And this is who she chose?

If hypergamy exists, the losers in that game were the men she passed up, not the guy who was sexing her up, then committed murder. That's pretty far removed from Beta nerd as far as I'm concerned.

My feeling is still that this is someone who was going to murder, period. If he hadn't killed the woman over a sexual harassment charge, he'd have likely offed a gas station attendant for some perceived "dis" or a mall customer for an imagined "insult."

Post: #73

Quote:This seems to be the story of a nice girl who chose an underemployed bad boy psychopath instead of the dozens of nice guys who probably tried for her.

A prior history of violence or other legal offenses would be indicative of psychopathy, but he apparently has none and everyone says he was "nice" and "quiet", blah blah. Maybe it'll end up coming out that he had a trail of bizarre shit behind him like Elliot Rodger did, we'll see.
Currently sounds more like a losery guy who snapped. He certainly married up, but lets be honest, with her face and body she wasn't snagging a dentist any time soon. Nonetheless he probably lucked out with her and I don't imagine getting fired for sexual harassment would fly too well in a new marriage.

Post: #74

They sure did troll the world with the title of that video, though, didn't they?

"Men’s Rights Activists Says Iowa Shooter Can’t Be Blamed For Killing"

They purposely make it sound like some public figure, a "men's rights activist," made some big public declaration or something. Is that what journalism consists of these days? Scouring internet forums for a comment (that's a rhetorical question - I already know it is)? Hell, I could build news programs all day on internet comments, if that's the case.

And is everyone on here a "Men's Rights Activist" now?

Talk about fishing for a story. At least a good proportion of the comments seem to have their BS meters on.

Post: #75

(06-16-2015 11:47 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  I've googled it but have not found, a documented psychological effect by where when you isolate people who think alike, the discourse becomes progressively more radical.

The term you're looking for is the "Evaporative Cooling Effect"; if you have a cup of liquid at any given temperature, certain particles will have a higher temperature at random moments; these ones will be able to 'bounce' over the rim of the cup, taking more than the average amount of energy-per-particle with them. With any group, the moderates will tend to evaporate away, while the more seriously committed stay, and come up with explanations for why the moderates weren't True Scotsman.

This is why I largely try and avoid internet drama.

On minding our Ps and Qs

If we were talking about serial killers, instead of this one-shot moron, we could discuss:

>The role of single motherhood
>Drug abuse from an early age
>Abandonment by schools/institutions
>The effects of early sexual interference

Et cetera; I don't think the onus is upon us to say "Well, I certainly don't approve of serial killing, but-" The Liberal Nancies will accuse us of defending spree killers, no matter how carefully we word our posts; the fact that they're posting about this thread so quickly demonstrates their familiarity with this forum, and yet they still refer to RooshV as an MRA site.

What I'm saying is, when your photo is published by a yellow journalistic rag, bleaching your shirt isn't going to make it anymore white. Nobody of sound mind would have interpreted any of these comments as defending a murderer; but to try and understand why murder happens, you have to empathize with them to some degree.