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.
Can't drive. Can't shoot. 👀
— Chris Redfield (@Gen_Vengence) April 3, 2018
https://twitter.com/AnthonyChannin2/status/981308137549500421
Good thing the YouTube shooter was a lady, or someone might have gotten killed.
— Greg (@gregvegas) April 3, 2018
https://twitter.com/Mason0010/status/981277110831431680
Looks like there's less female shooters for a reason:
Competence Gap! https://t.co/Jg2mS9BPjl
— Edwardo Deendrow (@elderindro) April 3, 2018
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.
I'm hearing rumors the Youtube shooter is a girl. If so, congratulations, ladies. You've proven once again you can do anything a man can do. #girlpower
— THE KING OF NIHILISM (@amazingatheist) April 3, 2018
https://twitter.com/WeWuzVikings/status/981308119904083969
Hey! Latest shooter is a female! Way to break that glass ceiling ladies!#Equality
— Nerd Jared (@Knighticus) April 3, 2018
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:
This female shooter has clearly perverted the peaceful teachings of the Holy Book of Womon and isn't a real womon. And before all you womonophobes jump in, the passage about 'kill all men wherever you find them' is taken out of context and is actually a peaceful message.
— Arthur Pewbglount QC (@Tigzy_J) April 3, 2018
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.
Steph,
i believe croquembouche and others such as me, raise this issue “again” because it seems like even if you say you agree with one small part of what scild said, you don’t want to understand main issue. instead you want to attack comments policy, once time to disagreeing with it (and misinterpret) and another time to use part of it to say people broke the rules and attacked you. which no one did. I understand you thought PRATT is same as English insult – but this already explained. I often misunderstand things on here too, so that is quite usual.
However, I feel you fixed on small things, small misunderstanings, but didn’t really want to change your mind on the main discussion, or think about what you said and why this argument is harmful. i know maybe you are new and didn’t seen before comments – but most people here have this same argument EVERY time David writes about shooters or violence and they are tired of it. (I know I am tired!). and this is one reason why it is in comments policy.
this arguement is not new or fresh or some “hard topic” we must discuss.
it is very rarely in any place, not just here and not just on internet that people talk about that mentally ill people are vulnerable, require help, care and support. mostly it is about some how it is their fault- they chose to be this way, they seek attention, if they just TRY really hard they can get better. or it is about that they are violent.
this are basically only public discussions about mental illness and it is so fucking harmful! so I believe it is very important in this place where we have some control, if people try to stay this discussion we shut it down! there is enough of it already without our contribution. it is about solidarity and compassion.
@Steph Tohill
Just because you have “moved on” from something, that means nobody else is allowed to address it?
You’ve shown an underlying resistance toward accepting the word of the commenters here. (And a complete disregard for some of those words as it happens, but I understand, I can be quite long-winded.) Now, I believe I can empathize with that, because for a long while when I started reading the comments here, I would occasionally feel pretty defensive for various reasons.
So what I’m going to say is that the vast majority of users on this website who respond to anyone to argue with them while giving them the benefit of the doubt that they’re not trolling, argue with the intention of that person learning how to better navigate sensitive topics like this one.
It’s great that you looked at the comments policy and understood Scildfreja’s clarification and revised your positions accordingly, but part of the point is that you were pushing back against those in the first place. And the entire time, you’ve been baulking at everyone else here as well.
@Steph
In case you missed the blockquote instructions, here they are again:
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:
@Steph
I’m a bit confused. You said this a page ago:
But I couldn’t find any post of yours prior to that which said anything along the lines of “oh! There the comment is! Yeah, that was totally out of line.”
The closest I could find was you saying “yeah, IF feministguy was internet diagnosing, I understand the side-eye”.
How was the commentariat expected to know that you found the post and revised your stance if you did not tell us that? It seems like you have skipped acknowledging what you have changed your mind on (and not just with regard to feministguy), instead snapping out “why are you still talking about that? I revised my stance!” to people who have not been told you revised your stance or what you revised it TO. This is not a good way to have a good-faith discussion.
@Catalpa – I am genuinely not snapping, so you shouldn’t take it that way.
Just don’t get why something that has been dealt with is being rehashed over and over and over. That’s all. It’s like flogging a horse that is dead, buried and long since rotted away!
not really though since you’re still talking about it at the top of this page of comments. more like we can’t see a horse, but you can and you said it is dead and we ask for proof.
@Croquembouche
I dealt with the old ground right here:
“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!”
And 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.”
And here:
“@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.”
And here:
“It’s not dishonest. It’s how I read Scild’s post.
They clarified – I understand their clarified position and agreed. That’s it. Hence me saying we’ve moved past that.”
I don’t see what new needs to be added.
well this is one thing some people still don’t agree about – so here is your answer why this conversation continues ?
@Valentin
“instead you want to attack comments policy,”
??????!
I said: “I have not once tried to “rules lawyer”, I have no issue with rules established on a private page.”
Jesus. Give it a rest, would you?
@Valentine
Good leave so far?
@dslucia
“It’s great that you looked at the comments policy and understood Scildfreja’s clarification and revised your positions accordingly, “
Well exactly. So it seems silly to continue to “@“ me asking my view on it.
@Steph Tohill
As a bystander here, it sure as hell feels like you’ve been rules lawyering from my perspective–first the comments policy, and then individual commenters. I get that it doesn’t feel like it from your perspective. But really, just stop. Now you’re arguing about whether you’re arguing. It’s annoying AF.
People here have been handing you tools to climb out of the hole, and you just keep using them as shovels to dig deeper. Can you please just shut up and listen for awhile, or at least stop responding and allow the conversation to move on to something else? Three pages of comments and most of them have been people dealing with you.
I’m new here and haven’t managed to get into no-you-did skirmishes with multiple regular commenters. It’s not that hard to avoid, really.
Don’t bother to reply to me directly. I am not interested in engaging further on this particular pages-long derail.
@OP
The myth that women can’t shoot or drive…I think about the statistic that the single largest job in the USA is as driver, and that the job is held predominantly by white men. So that tired bullshit joke is preemptive defensiveness to hold onto that particular job market, maybe? Where are all the jokes now about how self-driving cars can’t drive? Especially in the wake of the AZ incident…
(See what I did there?)
@solecism
Oh, but the AZ incident was surely an example of women being unable to drive, since the safety driver was a woman. (Don’t get me started on how well cars can drive autonomously. I’ll rant for days.)
Edit: forgot to add HOLY SHIT the amount of misogyny against that safety driver for not pleasing their boner enough.
Also, hello and welcome!
I think it’s too old for that? I remember that jokes about women drivers were old when I were a kid – and that were back in the late 50’s, when jobs were for life and seemingly grew on trees, so there wasn’t exactly a lot of fear about being replaced.
In unrelated news, Stormfront is going subscription only. The headline gave me a chuckle (More accurately, I laughed like a hyena)
Steph,
I don’t know if defending someone who violated the comment policy is in itself a violation of the policy, but since the purpose of the policy is to avoid these kinds of arguments from happening constantly, doing it is not going to go over well. The best thing to do if you think someone has been unfairly accused of violating it is to email David about it. Don’t argue about it. If you just want to clarify why it was a violation and want to ask, fine. But accept the explanation right away or if you disagree, again, email David instead of arguing it.
Since you were defending a comment you didn’t even read in the first place, the best thing to do is apologize and drop it. I know people’s first impulse is usually to defend themselves but it’s not always the right thing to do.
@Steph
That’s what you’re taking away from my comment? That I used the word “snap” and since I did you don’t have to listen to the rest of it? Don’t tone police me, please.
My point is that you have not been clearly communicating what your stance is on things. You seem to have been expecting people to read your mind, and declaring that a topic is dead when you haven’t addressed people’s concerns.
It’s because you said “yeah, but the legal system considers mental illness to contribute to people’s crimes. Why shouldn’t we be able to talk about that?” And have never walked back on that point. (Saying “I agree it’s messed up that people immediately jump to mental illness as a cause” doesn’t negate you wanting to talk about how, since the legal system acknowledges mental illness, the comments policy should also apparently allow for that.)
it is nice to be at home but some struggles since my girlfriend left her job because she got bullied. I agree with her but i hope she can find a new job soon, because we will struggle soon with money ?
Damn, sorry to hear that my friend. Even when someone does the right thing, they wind up paying somehow. 🙁
she did necessary thing – she is the victim here and I blame her colleagues fully for this situation. if she would let me I will go and talk to them about what they did, but it is useless.
Good morning! I see we are still having a tussle. Please allow me to internet diagnose the problem!
Steph, you’re doin a bit of this:
(i.e. using ‘we’ve already moved on from that!)
and not a whole lotta this:
(i.e. acquiescing to arguments made)
Case in point, dslucia made a large and excellent post about why we don’t internet diagnose back on the second comment page and what you did that caused offense. Your reply was to ignore all of it but the one thing you felt you had footing on by pointing out that you didn’t know which of Feministguy’s posts was being talked about. Which is a fair thing to say, but in refusing to acknowledge those things being said, we sort of have to take it as a given that your mind wasn’t changed by it.
Then later, you say things like “My comments have already move on past this.” or “it seems silly to continue to “@“ me asking my view on it.” It’s not at all silly to do so, because you have scarcely acknowledged the change in your opinions, and those acknowledgements come separated from the places they would be expected – in the replies to the arguments. The distance between them makes it harder to know where your position is.
That is my perception of why we’re still having a tussle! Serves 6 to 12, add salt to taste.
Where do you stand on this now, anyways? Has anything we’ve said swayed you?
EDIT: @Valya, I know we’ve talked on the discord about it, but please let your girlfriend know that there is a whole mob of internet strangers who are cheering for her and wishing her well!
@Valentine
She did right. No question at all.
I understand too well the urge to have a wee chat with her ex-collegues, but she is also right there too. It wouldn’t be for the best.
You’re a good person. 🙂
@Shadowplay
True. *Thinks about it*
But maybe we should take into account the legacy of WWII? Where women stepped into so many male-coded jobs civilian-side. And did well (of course), and enjoyed it, and didn’t necessarily retire willingly back into the kitchen/birthing parlor (and all the other labor-intensive work coded female) with an aw shucks when men returned from the war front to resume their old life exactly as they left it. As if. Plus, so many women were involved directly in the war effort but prohibited from combat duties. Thus many ended up as Army drivers. Including my grandma as a WAC.
And then add to that the slowly evolving legal/social status of women from property to wards of their fathers/husbands/brothers to fully legal adults. The jokes about women drivers are reminiscent of how some people like to joke about kids trying to drive and the car landing in the lake, for example. Like, how cute they’re trying to play grown-up. Best leave it to the real adults, tho.
Basically, the 50s were an era of doubling down on the white male privilege, and the Civil Rights era happened just when it did for a reason, yo. Along with all the other liberation movements of that time and building on it into the 70s onward.
that is too kind!)) I know I would just make things worse if I went to confront them! but hard not to feel angry about it.
@solecism
Good point. I personally don’t remember it in our family ( neither Mom nor Dad put up with that sort of shit. Hell, Dad’s older sister flew Spitfires during the war, for god’s sake! ) but jokes and general dismissal as a way of reinforcing “the traditional woman’s place” after a time of turmoil makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Thank you for the food for thought. 🙂
@Valentine
Yep. It’s hard not to feel angry. Harder still not to want to do something about it.