Categories
domestic violence guns men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny

Can’t Drive, Can’t Shoot: Idiots respond to news that the YouTube shooter was female

Modified screenshot of news coverage earlier today

By David Futrelle

More than a few observers were surprised, as was I, by the news that the “active shooter” on the YouTube campus today was not another young man angry at the world, but a female YouTuber who blamed company policies for a drop in her channels’ views who shot and wounded three others before taking her own life. [Note: This paragraph has been corrected; see bottom of post for more details.]

Naturally, a bunch of Twitter dudes decided to respond to the tragedy with jokes about women being as bad at shooting as misogynistic idiots insist they are at driving.

https://twitter.com/AnthonyChannin2/status/981308137549500421

https://twitter.com/gregvegas/status/981289349542117381

https://twitter.com/Mason0010/status/981277110831431680

https://twitter.com/elderindro/status/981294495420608512

Others made inane “ironic” jokes about glass ceilings being broken, welcoming the female shooter, whose name has not yet been released, to the boys club.

https://twitter.com/WeWuzVikings/status/981308119904083969

Others made jokes about sandwiches and how this means women should stay in the home lol lmao #AmiriteFellas?

https://twitter.com/sinndustries/status/981303664160706560

https://twitter.com/bk5950/status/981306476147937280

https://twitter.com/pvrgist2/status/981296657655529473

Then there were these dudes:

Congratulations, fellas! Amazing work all around. Really doing your gender proud.

NOTE: This post has been corrected. The initial news reports suggested the shooting may have been related to a domestic dispute, and I said something to that effect in the first paragraph. The police later released the name of the shooter, Nasim Aghdam, a YouTube creator. NBC is now reporting that she was angry with YouTube for allegedly discriminating against her and filtering her channel in such a way that she lost a lot of her audience.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
misophistry
misophistry
2 years ago

@Feministguy I’m pretty sure no one can help her now. You are new around here, howdy.

teatree
teatree
2 years ago

To give everyone the headsup, the gloating online bigotry could be about to intensify; it looks like the shooter might also have been transgender.

Z&T
Z&T
2 years ago

@ Weird Eddie,

“Prince of Darkness” LOL, I sent that link to my friend.

Feministguy
Feministguy
2 years ago

I do think there are some problems within Islam though, but EDL marches and “ban all muslims” ISNT the answer

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

Feministguy is getting some serious side eye for that comment from me.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@Feministguy

Shows that no one is immune from mental health problems

You’re going to blame a shooting on mental health problems HERE? Dude. Read the comments policy.

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

@Feministguy,

“Murderer” is not a mental illness. Nor is “asshole”.

By implying that her problem was a mental illness you are removing her agency and making excuses for murderers. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses don’t hurt so much as a fly – they are usually the victims of violence, not the perpetrator.

If a murderer is mentally unwell, that’s not the cause of their violence. The cause of their violence is a belief that they are justified. It’s entitlement.

Read the comment policy, please.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

What’s wrong with suggesting mental health issues may contribute to somebody’s behaviour? It’s recognised under the law.

Not being funny but it seems odd that the comments policy is at odds with that?

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Scild already explained what’s wrong with it. Which part is unclear? (I mean that question genuinely, I need to understand in order to answer your question.)

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

I read the commment policy (should have done so before, doh!) it doesn’t read as though feminist guy breached that unless it’s that he assumed her mental heath caused her actions without evidence that it did?

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@kupo

I did not see the original comment, merely the quoted piece – but my question is essentially what it was.

I saw Schild’s comment but that appears to fly in the face of the law and the position of mental heath workers / experts who do seem to accept that mental health can be a driver for behaviours.

The policy also doesn’t seem to contradict that which is why I was confused as to the response to feministguy.

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
2 years ago

…You haven’t been around here for very long, have you.

Literally every time this comes up, your question has been answered. Mental health does not dictate a person’s actions, and there’s a trend of sidestepping gun control debates by simply claiming that the shooter was mentally ill and leaving it at that–making there be no solution and increasing bigotry against those with mental illness, who are far more likely to be assaulted or killed than neurotypical people.

It’s tiring.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

“Mental health does not dictate a person’s actions, ”

But that’s not 100% true as many jurisdictions accept, the concept of diminished responsibility / not guilty verdicts by virtue of “criminal insanity.”

If Feminist Guy was rushing to make an internet diagnosis – then yes chuck that viewpoint in the bin. I didn’t see the comment.

But if the stance is that there is no such thing as behaviours driven by mental health issues then I was questioning that as it flies in the face of considered opinion and many legal systems?

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

@Steph Trohill:
Since it’s out of bounds to internet-diagnose here, isn’t that a moot point regardless?

See also: “murderer” and “asshole” are not mental illnesses.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

I didn’t see the comment.

Then go back, read the comment, read the comments policy again, and determine for yourself why it’s in violation.

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
2 years ago

Mental health can be a factor, in theory, but the person still has to make the choice to go through the steps of obtaining the weapon and bullets, getting to the location, and opening fire. That might sound simple, but for people who are actually mentally ill, this can take too much energy. (Hell, I’m mentally ill and have trouble rolling out of bed.)

That said, the broader point is that saying that the shooter was mentally ill is used to shut down further debate about gun control and the reasons why the shooter, well, started shooting while increasing stigma against mentally ill people. It’s easy to just say that someone is mentally ill and that we shouldn’t look through their actions and words leading up to the moment and move on. But it’s a continuing scapegoat.

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

A couple of years ago people were straight up saying “ONLY autistic people committed mass shootings” I even saw one person actually claim that any violence at all (even as a trained solder in combat) meant a person was mentally ill,
now its “ONLY mentally ill people commit mass shootings (if its a white guy)”,
from the look of of it entitlement and being radicalized by violent and bigoted ideology is a much larger part of the problem.

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

Claiming mental illness causes mass shootings is good for business since stopping mass shooting would lose gun makers money because mass shooting leads to a panic buy of the weapon used (which blaming mental illness will not prevent),
blaming mental illness suggests that gun control does not work (fewer laws means more sales and more mass shootings both good for business),
stokes fear of a marginalized group while diverting suspicion from hate groups/domestic terrorists meaning more violence against marginalized people (and more violence means more gun sales),
and promotes involuntary commitment in asylums as the solution to mass shootings instead of gun control (which means more business for abusive institutions not unlike the private prison system and less incentive to actually prevent mass shootings).

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@kupo

I can’t read as it appears to have been deleted – hence my question.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Troubelle.

Thanks for the taking the time to offer the broader explanation and yes I agree. A knee jerk default to “they have mental health issues” as a defence for murderous behaviour is problematic.

And if that’s what Feminist Guy did I understand the side eye!

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill
No it has not,
that post is still there.

I would also like to add that “mentally ill” is not a diagnoses in and of itself especially when “committed an act of violence” is the only symptom.

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
2 years ago

@TreePerson, thanks for backing me up.

@Steph

Thank you for taking the time to read it, and hopefully be a little closer to understanding. That said, given that you popped up immediately after the last guy got called out and you’re a bit slippery with this, we’re all looking at you a little funny. Might want to find your footing.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

“Thank you for taking the time to read it, and hopefully be a little closer to understanding. That said, given that you popped up immediately after the last guy got called out and you’re a bit slippery with this, we’re all looking at you a little funny. Might want to find your footing.”

What an odd comment.

I am not sure what the insinuation is but it’s far from my first post here. Nor do I see what’s slippery but ok. Let’s park that odd post to the side.

Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
Troubelle: Moonbeam Malcontent + Bard of the New Movement
2 years ago

You arrived under suspicious circumstances, and hence the side-eye shifted. We’ve had people dive-bomb before.

dslucia
dslucia
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill:

A knee jerk default to “they have mental health issues” as a defence for murderous behaviour is problematic.

Then why are you okay with people using it as one, and skeptically disbelieving everyone except Feministguy?

https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/03/cant-drive-cant-shoot-idiots-respond-to-news-that-the-youtube-shooter-was-female/comment-page-1/#comment-2079594

The shooter obviously needs help and I hope she does get it

Good at no one died, nothing to joke about.

Shows that no one is immune from mental health problems, as humans we are capable of anything unfortunately

Here’s the quote, by the way.

But if the stance is that there is no such thing as behaviours driven by mental health issues then I was questioning that as it flies in the face of considered opinion and many legal systems?

This is a misrepresentation of the actual argument, which–since you desire a broad explanation–is that mental illness does not singularly cause somebody to act on violent impulses. Whether it contributes is, in most cases, immaterial, especially when viewed in the context of how people use it.

In the wake of nearly every high-profile act of violence, the first reaction the vast majority of vocal commenters have is to assume that the perpetrator(s) must have been mentally ill. Beyond the fact that we cannot know that based simply on the information that they committed a violent crime, this presents a few major issues:

First, it offsets the blame for the act itself. As Scildfreja said, blaming violent crimes on mental illness removes a person’s responsibility for committing the crime; in effect, the argument is that they simply couldn’t help it because they’re mentally ill. I should think it would be easy to see why this claim is problematic and, moreover, logically incorrect. People in many assorted scientific and academic fields have conducted countless studies on people with wide varieties of mental illnesses, and even in people who do have violent ideation, the vast majority would never act upon their thoughts.

Second, it distracts from attempts to examine other contributing factors to violent crimes. When you can simply blame mental illness and be done with it, there’s no reason to examine the underlying societal structures which may have had a much larger impact on the person in question. This creates the same atmosphere of avoiding any introspection as do, for instance, endless repetitions of “thoughts and prayers”.

Third, it’s a way of distancing oneself from discomfort. This actually directly connects with the two previous points; blaming mental illness helps people to convince themselves that “normal” people couldn’t ever commit violent crimes. “Normal” people have the ability to choose to not do it, after all. This also means that things like access to guns for “normal” people couldn’t possibly be an issue worth discussing.

As a slight digression, it’s also worth pointing out that “mental illness” is a profoundly unhelpful thing to blame anyway, because it can encompass so many different things. I suffer from depression and extreme anxiety. I am technically mentally ill, and yet I am in a far better position with regards to mental illness stigmatization than a large portion of people. But every time somebody claims that a mass shooter, or a domestic abuser, or a run-of-the-mill misogynist is “just mentally ill”, every last one of us gets equated with them.

Awareness and aid for people with mental illnesses currently certainly has a long road of improvement still ahead of it, but immediately jumping to mental illness as the root cause of every violent crime doesn’t do that. It doesn’t make most people think that society should treat the mentally ill better. It makes them think that people with mental illnesses are dangerous.

Also, since you’re repeatedly bringing up legal codes, it should go without saying but apparently needs to be said that the law can be wrong. Or that even when it’s not directly wrong, that still doesn’t mean it’s entirely accurate.

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill (and Feministguy)

(I sort of go off the rails in this one, mild content warning for me getting angry. Sorry!)

Apologies for the terseness. Every time there’s an article about someone being violent; someone in the comments goes all “what a shame about their mental illness” in some manner, and we have this same discussion every time. It’s practically clockwork. So we tend to be a bit short and snarly in responses. Mea culpa.

What’s wrong with suggesting mental health issues may contribute to somebody’s behaviour? It’s recognised under the law.

This isn’t a court of law, and legality is not a substitute for morality. “Psychopathy” is a criminal justice term, not a psychological term; its presence or absence is irrelevant.

Frankly, our society treats “mental disorder” as a magic charm when it comes to the legal system. It’s how white boys and men get away with rape and murder with almost no consequences: Affluenza-boy just got out of jail for breaking terms of probation on his laughably light sentence for the negligent murder of four, as a prominent example. He went to jail for cheating on his probation, not for the murder, might I point out. Rapists can get out of trouble by claiming they were “out of control” or what-the-heck-ever; now he’s a good boy who goes around talking about abstinence or avoiding alcohol, and isn’t he wonderful now. Mental illness as ashield against consequences, used again and again by these monsters.

White people get light sentences by claiming momentary mental infortitude; white murderers get called lone wolves and mentally unwell instead of being tied to the history of abuse and their deeply violent, racist organizations.

People of colour, though? Troubled childhoods are given as a reason for severe punishment, right up to being executed by the police. I’ve lost count of the number of black people killed by police for the crime of having a mental illness in public. And no one bats a goddamn eye, and they talk about how the poor victim was unstable and dangerous, and the police needed to kill them because they felt unsafe.

By mentioning mental illness, the grisly, monstrous gears of this racist, sexist machine grind into action, rendering out the victims and the perpetrators by the colour of their skin and whether they wear pink or blue.

That’s why we don’t talk about it here. Let the demon-machine sleep while we pry off its gears.

(Not angry at you, just angry at the whole sodden mess)

EDIT: hi5 @dslucia

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Public service announcement for anyone who does not like or is confused by the ableism portion of the comments policy:

The reason that the no internet diagnosing rule was put into the comments policy was because we kept having to have the same argument over and over again every single time someone new/newish came into a thread to pronounce that the subject of the OP is probably mentally ill. It got very exhausting. So, if someone points to the comments policy and asks you to honor it, please just fucking drop it.

You can discuss how crazy a shooter must have been on just about every other site. Why it is so important to people to do it here just continues to mystify me.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Also, since you’re repeatedly bringing up legal codes, it should go without saying but apparently needs to be said that the law can be wrong. Or that even when it’s not directly wrong, that still doesn’t mean it’s entirely accurate.

Not to mention that “insanity” is not the same as “mental illness”, and, per wikipedia, “According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate.”

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

but WWTH, thats censorship!!!

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Troubelle what “suspicious circumstances” did I arrive under?

Commenting on this page – something I have done previously? What are the correct circumstances under which one is permitted to read articles written here and post?

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@dslucia

“Then why are you okay with people using it as one, and skeptically disbelieving everyone except Feministguy?”

1) I’m not.

2) I have no idea what that means.

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Why it is so important to people to do it here just continues to mystify me.

I might be wrong and I’m most likely jaded but I think it often gets brought here because its WHTM specifically as a derailment tactic.

Its either that or eugenics is alive and well in the US and the gears of a eugenics movement turn unseen and the “mental illness=violent” thing is just the justification for atrocities to come.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Schild

I was only taking issue with the assertion that mental health issues can never be a causative factor in somebody’s behaviour which is contrary to current accepted medical/legal opinion.

That’s all.

I’ve already updated my stance on feminist guy’s comment now that I was able to find it.

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

No problem, Steph. Like I said, I’m just angry at having to do this over (and over, and over). No one would argue that mental illness doesn’t affect behaviour. That’s not at all the point; that’s a distraction from the point. Our society steamrolls people with mental issues of all kinds, vilifies and denigrates them at every turn. That’s the point.

Oh, and a tradition: It’s Scild, not Schild.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Its either that or eugenics is alive and well in the US and the gears of a eugenics movement turn unseen and the “mental illness=violent” thing is just the justification for atrocities to come.

I worry about this sometimes too. Last week I was watching the documentary Cropsey and it featured clips of the expose Geraldo Rivera did on the Willowbrook Institute back when he was occasionally doing actual journalism. It was such a horrifying reminder of a still very recent past in which mentally ill and neuroatypical people were left in overcrowded and unsanitary institutions and forgotten, left to basically rot. I think society as a whole has just sort of collectively repressed how treating mentally ill and neuroatypical adults and children with absolutely zero humanity was the norm for most of history. I think it would be all too easy to go back there if we aren’t careful.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@Steph
So you were only taking issue with a position no one ever took. Gotcha.

dslucia
dslucia
2 years ago

@Steph Tohill

2) I have no idea what that means.

Do I really need to do this?

What’s wrong with suggesting mental health issues may contribute to somebody’s behaviour? It’s recognised under the law.

Not being funny but it seems odd that the comments policy is at odds with that?

Your second comment in this thread came in with this comment, initially taking mild umbrage with the comment policy of this website regarding internet diagnoses.

I read the commment policy (should have done so before, doh!) it doesn’t read as though feminist guy breached that unless it’s that he assumed her mental heath caused her actions without evidence that it did?

Here you made a comment which presented like you had read Feministguy’s post and also questioned whether people were actually correct in their assessment of Feministguy’s post, which begins a long chain of issues we’ll approach as we go through the rest of your comments.

@kupo

I did not see the original comment, merely the quoted piece – but my question is essentially what it was.

I saw Schild’s comment but that appears to fly in the face of the law and the position of mental heath workers / experts who do seem to accept that mental health can be a driver for behaviours.

The policy also doesn’t seem to contradict that which is why I was confused as to the response to feministguy.

Here you admit that you didn’t read Feministguy’s post, or at least that’s what you appear to be admitting. Assuming you saw Catalpa’s post as “the quoted piece”, that still provides enough context for one to extrapolate that Feministguy was ascribing the shooter’s actions to mental illness, which you have already claimed does not breach the comment policy here.

“Mental health does not dictate a person’s actions, ”

But that’s not 100% true as many jurisdictions accept, the concept of diminished responsibility / not guilty verdicts by virtue of “criminal insanity.”

If Feminist Guy was rushing to make an internet diagnosis – then yes chuck that viewpoint in the bin. I didn’t see the comment.

But if the stance is that there is no such thing as behaviours driven by mental health issues then I was questioning that as it flies in the face of considered opinion and many legal systems?

There are a few problematic wiggle words in here-

If Feminist Guy” is a big red flag to me. After having admitted to not reading Feministguy’s post and basing your position off of a disagreement with a post where somebody clearly stated that Feministguy was, in fact, breaching the comment policy, you are casting doubt that Feministguy did, in fact, say what people on this website are giving him the side-eye for.

You’re also shifting the argument by, as I already examined, misrepresenting the conversation at hand and by attempting to put an internet blog into a legal context.

@kupo

I can’t read as it appears to have been deleted – hence my question.

Here you admit more directly that you haven’t read Feministguy’s post, while also directly lying about the post being deleted. You may not have intentionally lied, perhaps you just didn’t see the post on the first page, but you’re still doubting that everyone else in this comment section has a reason for commenting against Feministguy as they have.

@Troubelle.

Thanks for the taking the time to offer the broader explanation and yes I agree. A knee jerk default to “they have mental health issues” as a defence for murderous behaviour is problematic.

And if that’s what Feminist Guy did I understand the side eye!

Here, once again, you use that wiggle word “if“. As with the previous part about the not-actually-deleted comment, I’m not sure if you’re intentionally trying to do this, but you’re implicitly doubting that anyone has a reason to question Feministguy, while offering half-hearted non-concessions that maybe he said what we’re saying he said.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Schild

Fairy Muff. I read the articles frequently but rarely read the comments / rarely comment so wasn’t aware of the frequency of such comments BTL.

Although I have noted and am frequently annoyed by the media tendency to leap to diagnose mental health as driving murderous behaviour. Well murderous behaviour by white people.

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
We kicked hitler’s nazi ass and acted like the T4 program was something only a nazi could come up with,
if I recall correctly a lot of the eugenics movement came from the US hitler just pulled the trigger after we built the gun.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@kupo

“So you were only taking issue with a position no one ever took. Gotcha.”

No.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@dslucia

“Here, once again, you use that wiggle word “if“. As with the previous part about the not-actually-deleted comment, I’m not sure if you’re intentionally trying to do this, but you’re implicitly doubting that anyone has a reason to question Feministguy, while offering half-hearted non-concessions that maybe he said what we’re saying he said.”

My comments have already move on past this.

Here:

“I was only taking issue with the assertion that mental health issues can never be a causative factor in somebody’s behaviour which is contrary to current accepted medical/legal opinion.

That’s all.

I’ve already updated my stance on feminist guy’s comment now that I was able to find it.”

“If” because I didn’t see the comment and thought that was due to it being deleted.

dslucia
dslucia
2 years ago

Double post:

which you have already claimed does not breach the comment policy here.

I’ll amend this; you accepted that internet diagnosing breaches the comment policy, but you were still shifting the actual argument toward “mental health can be a driver for behaviours” and doubting that Feministguy breached the policy.

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@scild

Whoops! Sorry about the random “h”.

dslucia
dslucia
2 years ago

My comments have already move on past this.

Here:

“I was only taking issue with the assertion that mental health issues can never be a causative factor in somebody’s behaviour which is contrary to current accepted medical/legal opinion.

That’s all.

Both Kupo and myself have noted that this is not what anybody was actually arguing. Nobody here made that assertion, so your attempt to divert the conversation toward that is… well, let’s say “dishonest”.

“If” because I didn’t see the comment and thought that was due to it being deleted.

And your first instinct was to give credence to a post you hadn’t seen and didn’t look too hard to find, while doubting that multiple other users on this website knew what they were talking about.

Also:

My comments have already move on past this.

My initial comment was from before you stated that, and the meaning of what I said relied upon the comments you had made before I posted. Context matters.

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

I have a bumpy name, easy to mistype.

I’m not Schildfreja. I’m Scildfreja.

Scild

Sciiiiiillllldddddd

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

Steph Tohill wrote:

@Schild

Seriously?

She just fucking told you that it’s Scild.

…and that’s a big part of why folks around here are side-eyeing you. It’s really not that hard to figure this shit out, so it’s pretty clear that it’s intentional.

Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
Scildfreja UnnyĂ°nes
2 years ago

Didn’t see your correction until after Steph! Mea culpa. I’m a bit too trigger happy tonight; need to cool it down a bit. AFK time! Nite nite my ducks.

TreePerson
TreePerson
2 years ago

There is a reason I copy past usernames.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@Steph

“So you were only taking issue with a position no one ever took. Gotcha.”

No.

Yes. You’re going to have to quote the actual comment(s) you’re asserting took this postion. No one else here saw it.

And please use the blockquote feature; it makes it a lot easier to read posts. If you see a quote button, highlight the quoted text inside the message box and click the “quote” button. If you don’t see a quote button, wrap the quoted text with the following tags:

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

The above will look like this after you post:

quoted text

Steph Tohill
Steph Tohill
2 years ago

@Gaebolga

“Seriously?

She just fucking told you that it’s Scild.”

Yes. Hence my apology. You could have saved yourself a post.