he called his gun christine afaik

christine killed the apple ;(

yeah, poor apple :((

what a monster

imagine what the apple could've done. giving humans a better life being nutritious and tasty and good for your teeth. now it's squashed cadaver is lying somewhere in the forests of finland.

true monster

would have kept the doctor away ;(

americans do it better

\o/



i mean...

germans are best!

achtually asian police officers are.

"Don’t blame the movies I see, the music I hear, the games I play or the books I read. No, they had nothing to do with this." thank god for that part in his manifesto, now we won't have to listen to Jack Thompson and his "games are bad, buhu, I'm a sissy". If this was good for anything it was for showing Mr. Thompson that not every massacre is because of games.

actually i kind of rooted for UT being somewhere in there tbh

Hah, very true indeed. =)

i kinda expected him to blame CPL and them not chosing Q3 :/

hahaha

His word doesn't count that much after he kills 7 innocent humans. In the end he was clearly insane and his philosophy of life was far from sane. I'm sure that he had somewhat fucked up childhood and bad parents.

i bet newspapers will be all over his parents so if they did any faults it'll show soon

http://www.kolumbus.fi/pikkulauri/bigpapa.htm
there's the dad ;)

I think his word counts just fine. why are you sure that he had a messed up chilhood or bad parents? blame everyone but the guy who did it, eh? and don't listen to him when he tells you why!

you know maybe if more people started listening to the things some of us are saying, these kinds of things would happen less frequently (than they already are happening, which is.. pretty infrequent).

If someone talks good about massacre, in our society he is considered mentally ill. Also mentally ill people will be taken seriously and they will be taken to shrink&mental hospital. Its totally different thing to discuss who is sick or not, its not part of this thread imo.

i wonder where is his very scientific categories of human kind he would put himself.

I mean taking pictures yourself firing a gun and posting them on the internet isn't exactly the epitome of intelligence or free thinking...

Pretty sure rednecks are good at it though :P

yeah he looks like some retard from the American south. Needed a mullet and a moustache though for proper authenticity.

+ nascar shirt

hah nothing says redneck like NASCAR

fääst cauuurs and dauuughnuts

Sounds like bliss to me :)

I haven really seen the pictures nor read anything he wrote, but just for posting pictures of you a gun and an apple you shouldn't be labeled different or insane. It can be a hobby, and it is for many. It's the same shit as if someone would post pictures of him a pet and a cake.

Now this guy clearly had lots of issues, but there's nothing wrong posting pictures of that kind.

Sure having random pictures is not really a sign of anything.

But if you claim to have evolved one step above everyone else and categorize people, obviously implying that he thinks he is in his "smartest 3%" category.
And he only posts those types pictures in that folder alongside his incoherent "manifests".

well he imght be in the smartest 3% .. the question is really if that has anything to do with anything?

the flaw people make is that they say all people are equally intelligent instead of insisting that even if people are not equally intelligent they should nevertheless be treated equally. you don't want to make arguments that can be undermined by evidence.

I didn't really mean to comment on his views of intelligence.

Was just pointing out that, writing essays about views on humanity as being dumb and worthless and himself as something superior and next thing you see is:

"Also, I like to go into the woods and shhot at apples, durr."

He has a distorted view for sure, but he doesn't really show signs of *stupidity* as such.. he played several instruments and did well at school. shooting an apple or posing with a gun is, despite your eager efforts to label them as such, not signs of stupidity or psychosis or whatever.

Stop making up stuff I supposedly said and learn to read.

I did not say stupidity or dumb anywhere. I did say I don't think he is superior, the smartest around or top 3%. Why those words somehow equal saying someone is stupid in your opinion I have no idea.

If your entire post was only about the last live of my previous comment:
"Also, I like to go into the woods and shhot at apples, durr." then I wuold still think it's obvious that that was an exxageration to make my point clearer, as can be seen by looking at the context.

well 3% is not exceptionally intelligent, that's the smartest kid in class; if you're not arguing that that these actions disqualify him from being 1in33 then i indeed need to learn how to read, or you need to make yourself better understood.

the problem is that you seem to fix on only parts of sentences. As you did a while back when you quoted me half of one of my sentences which drastically changed it's meaning.

In this case I always connected the top 3% part with how he thought of himself a being superior. So in your scenario he would not only be the smartest kid in his class but also think that he is superior than the rest. Most likely he figured he was superior to everyone in the school, as putting himself in the 3% group doesn't mean he did think he would fit in the 0,01% group as well.

Either way, yes, I think you should work on your reading skills.

It's hard to untangle your thoughts while not misrepresenting them..

1. If you're defining superior as something one human can't be in relation to another then of course when he's saying that he's superior that is a false statment.

2. If superior is in way of how intelligent he is then he might be right, right? There is no evidence strictly showing him to be less intelligent than can be classified among the 3%, right?

I'm guessing you go with 1? or perhaps an unknown 3 that you may enlighten me about? You seem to imply sometimes that it is possible to be superior; i assume this then would go outside how he himself defined it (3%), so what would this definition be?

you are right it's a 3 ;) I am indeed interpreting that HE thought superior to mean he is better than everybody else. Doesn't matter if I think it's possible or if he is or anything.

However, if he does write all that stuff, believes it himself and (I think obviously) wants to show any reader how much smarter he is, then it's ridiculous adding a pic of shooting at apples.

As an example:

What would you think if Einstein rounded up his theory of relativity with a picture of himself throwing an egg against a house?

Actually, that would rock, because it kinda fits him :/ Well, I hope this example still helps somehow.

The reason i guess i'm coming at you is because i know the "stupidity" genius can sometimes display - i mean, they sometimes do stuff that is sooo random and soooo idiotic that normal people couldn't even begin to imagine something that silly.. but anyways.. he's probably not as great as you thought he thought he was, based on his manifesto ;)

ok. agreed.

/edit

I bet you were thinking of Nietzsche hugging the horses :P

Haha, that's just nietzsche finally being too weak to resist showing his overwhealming pity for all living things; can't be good air, bread and medicine to his friends with such displays of weakness :P

What a moron. I can spot so many logical fallacies in his thinking. Didn't he think "wait.... what are people going to think if I go ahead and do this alone?" The conclusion most people would have gotten to is that they will think he is a sad and lonely person. He's not so much "godlike" as he is "deadlike".

maybe he wanted to show that you need to care about people who's lonely or things will go bad. that's what i learned at least :)

lol, there are many other ways to do that.

still a dumbass.

ye true.. probably not the most effective way :x

i wonder what triggered this "anti-humanity" for him

thinking?

uhh i think not.. i'd say he was influenced by something

such as?

reading a book for example, talking to someone who preaches stuff like this maybe. i dont know :].

well he said not to blame anything or anybody else but himself. but to some extent i agree that there could( just not to say must) have been something.

Doesn't take much to be a misanthrope. Every sane and smart person is more or less one. If you aren't you should wake up.

¶¦¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ

Your rant needs vote Ron Paul at the end.

Oh and a Bill Hicks and George Carlin quote or two.

misanthrope.. i never understand why people hate the human species.. i can see how they don't like "massmentality" and "conforming slavemorality" but why is that a reason to dislike the human race as a whole?

sure, these things might not be the *best* we can imagine, but that's no reason to want away with it..

I believe that the reason is that they feel mistreated by everybody for various reason. Then they blame whatever they pick up, such as massmentality and other terms.
Sounds so much better if you tell yourself that you are starting a revolution as opposed to whining abot how everybody treats you badly.

Nice ad hominem right there.

Uh, I'm guessing you think the "you" was directed at CPLains?

It wasn't.

Attack the argument or misanthrophy in this case instead of the person or anything related to him.

neither argument nor misantropy, I answered his question. And as I said before I didn't attack him either.

you
pron.
1. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed: I'll lend you the book. You shouldn't work so hard. See Regional Notes at you-all, you-uns.
2. Used to refer to an indefinitely specified person; one: You can't win them all.
3. Nonstandard Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb: You might want to get you another pair of shoes.

look at number 2 and learn English before you throw around big words.

Have I completely misunderstood this one then?

I believe that the reason is that they feel mistreated by everybody for various reason. Then they blame whatever they pick up, such as massmentality and other terms.

Because we are killing the earth. We are also stupid enough to actually have people believe in this "god theory."

killing the earth? you mean the animals/plants or something more undefinable?

The entire environment. Greenhouse effect and all that shit =)

The "earth" will live, we might not.

I never said the earth would be dead. I'm saying we are killing it. Doesnt mean that we actually will succeed will it?

There only needs to be one or two organisms left on earth and in a few million years the biology on earth would return to normal. You can't harm a planet unless you permanently destroy it.

U can be misanthrope just because u can be it. Quite simple.

"zmongo" reminds of some rathergood character :p

the great mzungu`? :p

I just find the name zmongo funny : )
It isn´t related to anything in particular

hehe, i think the guy who came up with mzungu thought the same thing.. maybe you'll like that humour (i did :p)

search for "tales of the blode" (can't recall which one he shows up in, there's around 6 tales) ;)

will check :)

http://www.rathergood.com/blode/ 1ºepisode ( still searching for the mzungu one )
silly humour with no sense whatsoever
i love it =)

the most funny thing about this is that u were actually right about the type of humour i like by just seeing my nick. Interesting coincidences i guess :)

Hehe, it makes sense though, on a guessing-level. :P

Besides, it's really a hidden goldmine few people know about from the ancient deapths of the internet before shameless first-page-at-youtube-popularity took over and deprived us of the good old meaningless (nihilistic?) humour that once prevailed - so it had a good chance :;)

by the way; http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song :D

nice :)

quote from love & hate.doc

What do I hate / What I don’t like?
Equality, tolerance, human rights, political correctness, hypocrisy, ignorance, enslaving religions and ideologies, antidepressants, TV soap operas & drama shows, rap -music, mass media, censorship, political populists, religious fanatics, moral majority, totalitarianism, consumerism, democracy, pacifism, state mafia, alcholohics, TV commercials, human race.
What do I love / what do I like?
Existentialism, self-awareness, freedom, justice, truth, moral & political philosophy, personal & social psychology, evolution science, political incorrectness, guns, shooting, BDSM, computers, internet, aggressive electronic and industrial rock & metal music, violent movies, , FPS –computer games, sarcasm, irony, black humour, macabre artm mass & serial killer cases, natural disasters, eugenics

Hmm I also like BDSM, FPS –computer games and rap music. Life would be so fucking boring without BDSM, FPS computer games and rap music.

why are you posting that? this is just going to be used as some sort of poor argument by the mainstream media (and the unwashed, ignorant masses) to start lynching the intellectuals.

I feel the way that guy does about a lot of times. I still haven't killed anyone, and I'm probably not going to.

it's not like mainstream media reads this site :D

anyhow, i just pointed out a few "funny" facts..

lol, hilarious

why?

The fact that he thinks the mainstream media is reading this thread

and the fact that he thinks the mainstream media would not spot things in that 'love & hate.doc' themselves (which on the other hand they no doubt will be reading). Yea, it takes one guy in a thread on esreality.com to spot such unnoticable points in a document!!!!!!

i think he considers esr a mainstream media

i also think he is 13 & emo

I think your reading comprehensionator is broken.

wow, aint you an idiot.

for once [+]

BDSM, fuck yeah!

i think it was another fan of slipknot&CS, like last one in Erfurt Germany. Real dickbrained schizo-psycho-naut... death and hate on him :X.

"Democracy... you think democracy means freedom and justice? You are wrong. Democracy is a dictatorship of the moral majority... and the majority is manipulated and ruled by the state mafia. "

cant argue with that. overall the manifest was a bit utopian and extreme, yes, but interesting to read anyway. some good points were made.

the final act of angst and puberty was a bit too much and wasn't the best way to get the point across. now people will just block his view.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill

i agree, the best from bunch.

I disagree.

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people.

which dictatorship has proven itself so far?

Augustus Caeser, Queen Victoria or any good king or queen etc. The problem is they they are usually followed by retards.

and in modern days?

I suppose Mao Zedong wasn't too bad.

most parts of china is in misery but i guess it's hard to run such a huge population.

You have to see what he started with and where China is today. During the times of most great leaders most of the population was in poverty etc. What he did for the country (well I would say most of the things, not everything of course) was good.

i wouldnt call going for super shit to shit something to be proud of, really.

Well say someone takes over a stable first world country for four years, and does apsolutely nothing, but the country stays the same, does that make him a better leader?

no(?)

So you would accept a good leader would be someone that improves the country?

let me put it like this.

your clan play a game of tdm. with 3 minutes left you are behind by 700 frags. in the last 3 minutes you make up 20 frags. you're still shit and lost by miles but you did a 'ok' effort the last mins but it still makes you the worse players.

In your example you are saying that China itself is "shit" which has nothing to do with government or anything we where talking about. I can list many democratic shitholes too which doesn't say anything about the form of government. The situation in (some of) Europe and the United States are only "good" because of high income, intellectual property and technology. Most of the democracies in the world are in a worse state than China.

Saying this, I think that the situation in China will also change spectacularly, most likely being equal in living conditions to any 1st world country within our own life times.

sure as hell not for the broad population of china.. the majority of the instustrial parts of china might reach that level at best, but not all the people scattered over the countryside. if you read up some about the circumstances people have to work there in e.g. textile processing you'll realise that the few people who make the big bucks and already benefit from all the economic growth have no interest at all to let the workers participate. this reminds more of the times with slavery than european/NA living standards.

I would disagree. There has been a significant rise in the Chinese standard of living in recent years. Only 10 percent of the Chinese population is below the poverty line, and that is rapidly declining. 90.9% of the population is literate, compared to 20% in 1950.

I expect that the standard of living would continue to rise.

the high value of education is one of the few good things in comunist regims, in my country for example 20 years ago it used to mean something if you was on a high school, now every stupid is a student, if you have money you can graduate
in comunism educational institutes are not money dependant to the people, the state is financing them so teachers afford to be as severe as they want
but this is not Mao's merit

"There has been a significant rise in the Chinese standard of living in recent years" --- after Mao was going to hell

i think its shit and its because they have been ruled like us westeners was in the 1200-century.

excepting the fact that he was a mass murder ?
lol

Mao & his gang were worse than Hitler and Stalin combined.

When did human rights come into this and when was I praising Mao? I just gave an example of a dictatorship that was not too bad. There are more aspects to being a good leader than just looking out for people. I doubt the situation would have been different if China was democratic.

id say hitler actually made some really good decisions (and obviously lots of really bad one too). he got germany out of the economic cesspit it was stuck in and built up some big and important infrastructure. For all his failings, he did have some pretty good domestic policies.

*plz dnt take this as endorsing ww2 and the holocaust etc...

That is a very similar thing that I am talking about with Mao. I'm sure that if Hitler did not invade the other countries in Europe (and maybe not have such drastic human rights abuses) he probably would have been thought of as one of the great leaders of the 20th century. Of course that's not how the cookie crumbled :)

well, we won didnt we :D

Well in total I think europe lost :( I wonder what would have happened if there was no war.

Yea, retards such as ones on Tienamen square standing in front of tanks and shit. Just wtf were they thinking?

I have no idea what you are trying to point out, I did not say he was the greatest leader ever or whatever, nor did I say that China is the greatest country on Earth. It was an example of a dictatorship that improved the country without democracy. If you want to compare two countries which were in similar states, look at India and China from about the 1900s onwards. One was democratic and one was communistic. I would say that China has progressed better, and if China accepted democracy I doubt they would be in a better state than they are today.

I think that nearly every country that is run via tyranny will eventually fail. And yes, there will eventually be someone that is dumb. (As a recent example, Mugabe?)

You must remember that democracy is not about the majority getting the vote. The most important thing of democracy is representation.

Remember that without democracy, most likely YOUR rights will not be protected. I don't give a fuck about stupid people or who they vote for, that's politics. What I do care about is how the ruler of the country or the rules of the country will affect me, and my freedom to say what I want and live the way I want to.

On a side note I do agree that tyranny is the best form of government, but it depends on the despot ;) One guy can't rule forever, and the hearts of most men are a darker shade of grey.

The best form of government is one that doesnt exist! Anarchy for the win

I've had this argument with someone else before. I am still surprised people think it would be an effective "government".

We will never know until it actually happens. Unfortunately, every time someone tries they get killed. Although people actuallty has tried a few times :)

Oh but it has happened, many times at that. It's just that having no government usually leads to tyranny quite quickly, or to government by the strongest, whatever meaning (economic, military, etc.) strength assumes depending on context. Anarchy is a contradictio in adjecto : it posits that there should be no authority, but then why should anyone accept the authority that posits there should be none?

Many times? Please do share.

The only times I've actually remember "true" anarchy (organised anarchy) being the ideology are: a) spain in the 1930's and b) the Kibbutz movement (well sort of anyways at times they have been functioning as anarchist movement and not socialist/zionist) Note that the absence of government does not automatically become anarchy. What happened in for example, somalia (1990's), the french revolution and similar events are not anarchy.

When a state collapses its not automatically anarchy. What happened in somalia for example was a Failed state, and not anarchy. Do not mistake chaos and lack of leadership for anarchy.
Anarchy means without leaders, but not without order. A functioning anarchist movement or state has laws or rules and functions mainly through mutual aid, direct action and voluntary association.

If you actually care to read, there are some decent links on the subject. Like http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm for example.

How many times do you think a people has found itself without a leader ? Many times. The fact that they sometimes were periods of chaos is just coincidental, and isn't my point. If a state collapses and has no government, it is anarchy, by the very definition of that word. Similarly lack, or rather absence of leadership, is anarchy. If you are using your own personnal definition of the word, so be it, but I'm not interested in debating semantics of a concept that has been defined as such for two and a half millennia.

Wrong.

Lack of leadership for a period of time does not automatically make it an anarchistic society, thats the whole point. We are talking about a movement, group, or society based on anarchy here. Not a country that has killed their king and then fight amongst eachother for the power.

Wrong.

Lack of leadership constitutes anarchy by definition. Thank you for telling me what you are talking about, which is not anarchy but your own flavour of a libertarian government.

The word anarchy itself has several definitions depending on the original source. Without leaders, without authority, no government etc. The definitions are literally thousands of years old, even if the word itself is not.

I was the first person in a thread to bring up anarchy, and I did it referring to a society or movement without a government, not trying to come up with an official definition

Yes, the word is several thousand years old. You can find it in the writings of Herodotus, Thucydides and Aristotle, all of whom agree on its meaning. What you're talking about is a hybrid concept born out of the minds of new-age hippies that was never given any precise definition and can hardly be considered with any kind of seriousness.

Belgium seems to be trying hard not to have a government.

iceland only got snow, don't be bitter :(

UK only has slags don't be bitter :o

*married

Well first we need to find out what is the definition of anarchy we are speaking about. Does it mean no governmental organisation at all? So no police, no state hospitals, no schooling, no army, no public transport etc.

What would usually happen is that if there were none of those things, they will generally be recreated over time. There is also the problem of other countries, of course most countries will not just invade others, but over a large period of time the anarcistic society will probably be threatened by something, and will thus create a "national" army or be taken over by the threat.

Also, I don't have much hope in the general population, as there is a lot of violence without any form of government already. For example violence between football supporters, or racial hatred. I think that people like to form groups, and without representation (from democracy etc.) or a national constitution or law, enforced by a police force, people would not be very safe.

Why would those things dissapear? Anarchy is not about destroying the entire society structure. Of course there would be healthcare, police, schools etc. A fully functioning Anarchist society is very organised so obviously there would be rules and laws. You're making it sound like anarchy would mean absence sensibility :)

Ok, so, who decides the law?

People do it together...

So they vote and the majority wins?

Whats the problem? Have you never agreed with a group of people about something?

I have, but I have also disagreed with far more people.

Well I disagree with alot of people on things, but usually there is something we can agree on :)

No, you simply can not possibly expect to reach consensus and the rational/logical/only good direction. There needs to be someone intelligent deciding, not 100 000 random stupid fucks who are misinformed and trust whatever they're told.

So the majority rules? Oh wait.

haha, reminds me of that southpark episode where cartman tries to get rid of the hippies :p

I wish he had managed to do that :(

That's failure right there.

Also, would there be tax? And who would be in charge of that money?

That would depend on what the people decide upon, dont you think?

Yeah you're right. It's so easy to dismiss everything he said because of what he did. Need more smart people here and not robots.

I even agreed with alot of it but after that what does he do ? goes kills some school kids

YE U REALLY MADE A DIFFERENCE

right

why did he not pay a visit to George Bush if he really wanted to do something good ?
Bush might have his bodyguards but a sniperrifle would calm him down without problem

what

if a psychopat feels he wanna kill other people go and kill some "Important" people which we all know are criminals, not innocent people
seems Bush is a mass murder, with the iraqi war being just an invention, if I'd go nuts I'd probably wanna shoot the boss of the CIA or some corrupted lawyers, not innocent 10 years people
even if you go mad on world you can make yourself useful

Haha I suppose you're right.

Fuck Bush, those 'innocent 10yo people' were probably the ones who picked on him and who he hated the most. Interesting how the guy passed the psych test to get the gun tho, if he was such a disturbed lunatic?

see comment #17

I see bunch of teen bullshit. Your point is?

he don't just said "I hate a lot of my classmates, at some point he even mention politics people"
also the other crazy guy that american (Chan ?) made allusions to the american regim "you have not enough, your hedonistic needs bla bla..."
so these fuckers think indeed more than just "there are their 5 enemies in this world which have to die, because they are the cause of the evil in the world"

they're hate the whole world fcourse they're gonna write crap, but they're not really angry at some politician, they're really angry about people that surround them.

you never know where this could lead

R.I.P. Endi

sounds more like ppb

You've obviosuly never landed a triple rail on Endi.

A triple rail on one person? That's some pretty bad spawn luck right there. Thanks alot arqon.

cunt ruined promode

neither have u

careful he raped lob 50-0 on ztn while blindfolded

ahah :DDD

another frustrated vergin takes it out on "humanity" lol

he was a fan of battlefield 2. now finnish newspapers thinks its because he liked to play bf2 which is "war-simulation" and his rank was master-sergeant.

you his disciple?

no, that guy was pathetic.

Why?

because he played bf2?

coz that korean in america got like 32-1 kill rate
7-1 gives finland a bad name

But this finn had a .22 and shot exactly 69 times!

pretty bad aiming skills imo :p

Umm the victims had been _HIT_ multiple times to upper torso / head. The most was ~20 hits.

// Pushpabon @ school

true

I used to do the same in SoF2 but with a knife

is that considering the ammount of people in finland and america, and the difference in access to deadly weapons?

means nothing
a school is a school
a gun is a gun

Guns don't kill people - rappers do!

blobba dobba dee - do do do

well, ammount of people would differ.. and this finnish dude seemed "selective".. i was on his youtube account some months ago, he called himself "natural selector" i think.. x)

Amount!

a flying broomstick?

no, but thanks; i'm a horrible speller. when i don't have spellcheck i've absolutely no idea how to spell words sometimes. :((

google hits method is cumbersome :P

loving the lack of files in that link tbh!

all been taken down ul

puberty! puberty! puberty!

developers developers developers

Was he a vegan?

Only in America. Oh wait...

Disclaimer: may contain some analogies and patterns that only excists in my head.

He's a social darwinist, well read in nietzsche coupled with strong misanthropic tendences. I also have a feeling that he has symathies for the radical luddism of Theodore Kaczynski, raging against the technological integration and thus assimilation of the individual into the masses.

It seems to become increasingly clear that massmentality and slavemorality is superior and especially well suited to handle our scientific and robotic society.

This seems now, in light of these spasms, to dawn on the people who glorify strong individuality and think they would rather live in a time when master-morality regined supreeme and when natural selection was, in a way, more primitive.

A feeling of massmentality taking over and society excluding individuals seems to me especially strong in the retarded school-system we have nowadays. This much is clear, and can be quoted from many a recent genius, that the early schooldays was for them mostly nothing but a prison for the mind and a place were everyone was required to fit in the same scheme.

I think this early influence coupled with the hormones and radicalness that's often rampant at that age served to tip whatever else he might have been balancing.

If he had matured a bit he would have seen that the conforming attitudes of the schools and pupils up to that age really is an extreme form of how the society in general is like.

In the end i guess the problem of radical luddism, misanthropy and lack of "the individual" is something we will have to face up to in this integration and technological authoritarian world where the individual more and more becomes a tool and rescource for science rather than the other way around, and the norms and morals become more and more allembracing and powerful.

Unless... Some great new idea of self-realization and individual existentialism surfaces in a setting where it is actually realizable (unlike now where, despite 40% or whatever of teenage girls think they will becomes famous or actually "become something" (which is already defined by society's allembracing norms and values), only 0.000whatever% become that thing).

I think this great new idea for many serves in the form of transhumanism where humans become so potent as fulfilling the basic maslow's triangle needs, (food shelter comfort), that that they spend their lives with the most "advanced" need, self-realization.

But this again seems dangerously close to the scientific, eugenic, authoritarian world that Aldous Huxley portrays in "brave new world", where people are bred to serve certain roles so specifically that almost all of them are content with their own little place in the whole. And again; approximation to this form of life, or to any sort of technological rise with robots and humans mergeing is bound to have people opposing it and going "postal", because they don't like it or feel it is better that humans won't exsist at all.

From a point of prediction it is impossible for me to yield any other result than that the supertechnological world will push itself forward as fast as possible taking over whatever rescources or ideologies that contradict it. So i agree with the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, that any "modest" ammount of limiting the integration and adoptation of technology is bound to fail; and it's too bad that the opponents of technology and "masssociety" will realize this and possibly try to annihilate all of humanity :p

stfu

subtle yet sweet

[+]

Essay?

I say, "whatever".

too long, didn't read

fu

Imo he misunderstood or misused the term of social darwinism, iirc it is used to refer to the theory that social pressures in the from of finances or academia finally output the "best" of humanity, something to which I do not agree.

While some parts of his manifesto were agreeable, e.g how in the kindom of the bling the one-eyed is king, it still reeks of a fundamentally unhappy sociopahtic teen who in essence soiled everything that he believed in, concerning the public at large since they will mostly concentrate on what he did.

Also, parroting Nietzsche etc... like there is no tomorrow is not transcendentalism imo.

One thing that I have wondered is that why these "survival of the fittest" schemes are almost always championed by these total gimps?

final word to the anonymous anus poster boy on how any dictature would be better than the current regime, what if the the dicature would not be one of your liking?

fuck. my post is gone x( arg. and i'm writing standing..

it basically was;

1. social darwinism can be interpreted as he did, with a wish for mastermorality where competition is primary rather than coop. on this he would also not agree that society outputs the "best" through their system through academia etc. these are rather the rathergood conforming people. One can wonder why people with IQ's between 125-155 are optimally suited and those 155+ usually resist the normal course of "succeeding"..

2. he created headlines etc. which probably gets the message across to those suseptible like he was inspired by other school shotings.

3. "Also, parroting Nietzsche etc... like there is no tomorrow is not transcendentalism imo."
???

4. I guess "these total gimps" are different from the norm in several ways that make them feel out of sync with their enviornment. Thus feeling that the majority that they are not apart of, although they are no less intelligent than they, have this superior grip over both them and society at large. consequently they would rather have strength/willpower/intelligence determine the course of things rather than conformity/popularity/social skills.

Yarr.

I was a bit intoxicated when I wrote that, I meant to reply to the chain in general, not your post specifically.

Butter fingerz

Yarr :x

how long does it take you to write up these comments? if it takes you 5 minutes im extremely impressed.

that took about 30min since i had to search up a lot of stuff the thoughts reminded me of etc. i can see flaws in it etc. but i hoped it would spark some discussion in that general direction because that's the aspect that interests me; this media "oh can it happen here too? how do we protect ourselves against these insane unstable persons? should we enforce more strict surveliance to stay safe? remove guns?" talk is not really intersting to me :;P

I'd be extremely impressed if he stopped posting such pseudo-psychanalytical, formless crap. This is an insult to all humans equipped with a functionning brain. I've never seen as many subpar references aligned without any kind of logic, mingled with half-arsed interpretations of the causes of something which is altogether a non-event and that pretends to infer conclusions about the state of the universe at large. That drivel wouldn't even pass the screening test for the psychology section of a women fashion magazine. Give me a break.

can't you rip my comment apart instead?

I'm doing good as far as interpertation and critique goes, i've gotten enough good feedback to need to worry about the state of my brain.

sure i may fuck up totally when positing any of my own views and trying to see some larger context in these events; that is only expected. many intelligent people my age fall for conspiracies left and right, so i'm sure i see things that aren't there too.

but surely you see the topic i'm aiming at and can see where i go wrong? I'll make it easy for you to point out my shit; i'm trying to say basically that;

1. we are drifting towards a brave new world

2. this is what the rebels resists and want to prevent; and ultimately, as the unabomber concluded, the only way, the final solution is to get rid of alllllll technology because the good and the bad kinds can't be seperated.

3. the transhumanists on the other hand see this change as inevitable and something that must be embraced and want to guide and steer the present into a safe future.

Nice way to dismiss an argument is to attack the person and the argument with ridicule etc to make him look stupid/bad. Works every time unless you care to invoke the ad hominem card!!!

Yeah, but invoking ad hominem where there is none might make you look like an idiot.

yeah, it's more akin to "ad comment" isntead of "ad content of comment"

Your comment was ripped apart enough in itself.

You're doing terrible as far as interpretation and critique go because you're constantly repeating the same things without ever questionning them; you analyse things from the same standpoint and try to get to conclusions you have chosen beforehand by carefully picking axioms. So much for the "good feedback."

I hope you're not trying to say you should feel entitled to write what I would not even deem a good exercise in automatic writing because there are people your age who are stupid.

Finally, no, I cannot see what you're aiming at and I dare anyone to tell me. That post was at best a randomly assembled collection of unsubstantiated claims relying on appeals to authority - you could have at least picked authorities that excel elsewhere than in the department of lunacy.

Oh, and thank you for restating your assumptions, maybe time has come for you to question them.

Hey, ok i get where you're going but this thinking is ingrained in my thinking pretty much overall from kurzweil and transhumanists etc. I'll try to question my thinking but i can only weaken the positions to be acceptible and understandable as theses right?

I randomly read Habermas yesterday, and can see that he has the same notions i'm aiming at, and see them as problems that need to be overcome. Now i recognize that i had a flawed vocabulary to discribe what i meant but surely it will become clearer now in light of my new vocabulary ;D

I don't know if you've read him or respect him at all. I know my anti-pragmantic, anti-postmodern friend who happens to be a luddite hates him :P

Anyways; he has, as far as i gathered yesterday, the concept of the lifeworld on the one hand and the concept of the system on the other. What's happening according to him is that the system is taking over the lifeworld causing "social pathologies".. Although he's optimistic he doesn't seem to see any solution to this problem, except trying "somehow" to revieve the public sphere..

Now, what i meant by movement towards brave new world was just the same as habermas means by the system taking over or intruding on the lifeworld.. and the social pathologies i thought would be the "spasms" we see in e.g. the schoolshotings. but can also be seen as drug-abuse, feelings of alienation, isolation, suicide, depression whatever..

I realize it was stupid to bring up transhumanism as it just clouds the whole thing, and also that the conclusion of either embracing technology fully or trying to destroy it totally as unabomber wants it is unduely pesimistic and i'll move away from that view ;)

Now i'll try to question my premises. (in habermas terms)

1. The system is taking over the lifeworld.

Uhm.. Well, it seeeems to be the case e.g. in usa where coorporations are taking over and controlling the public sphere to the point where all "communicative action" is part of some corporate goal which may not be in the interest of the public. People seem to take the goals and values given to them by media and movies and strive for those things; which may really just again be part of the corporate goals...

The "nordic model" as we have may be better right? At least here in norway we are not really there yet, we still seem to have an authentic public sphere, albeit a bit dumbed down, that takes care of important issues.

Perhaps there is some system that can avoid this tendancy of the system taking over after all.. So although the assumtion that we are moving against brave new world is true at some places and to some degree, it may be that the progression will not be linear and may at some future point fix itself upon a new and more promising course.. But it's still an important issue to avoid this thing right? Even if it's only a possible way, it is still worth taking into considertaion - even if just to avoid it.

2. If some people think we are moving in that direction OR suffer consequences i.e. social pathologes they will want to rebel and change it somehow.

Well.. Firstly if the first premise falls: that we are not in fact going towards this new world; then, the consequences won't be "real" even if people think it is. disregarding that; the schoolshotings may be random people who are picked on and depressed. It may have nothing to do with this. And it is not proven, despite what Habermas claims, that social pathologies are a result of the "system" taking over the lifeworld... This may simply be some random cause of diet or whatever..

I really can't see the other objections.. would be interesting to see what more objections can be raised.

I remember at one time here on the site i always had this notion of social darwinism where the more evolved a species is, the more it deserves to live or whatever; and i remember one user here on the site pointing out how "evolution" really has no "better" and "worse" species, except dead and alive ones; and that "evolution" can be argued really to have no direction. That i recall really opened my eyes, because i just couldn't see it, and wasn't aware of it, before someone pointed it out. So if you have anything like that, go ahead ;)

i've gotten enough good feedback to need to worry about the state of my brain.

definitely.

hehehe.. THAT too :p

We are not drifting there that's the problem.

Think of it like this:

Iraq war hero kills 15 "iraqi dissidents" , he comes home, receives a fucking medal of honor for ruining the lives of so many people for a cause he doesn't even know or has been lied to about at the very best. Most likely he will end up giving seminars to young susceptible teenagers in high schools about how killing 15 spics (they cant even call them humans because then they realise how despicable they really are) made him famous enough to write a biography and cash in millions of dollars.

School shooter nr x kills 8 people out of desperation with modern society coupled with teenage angst, he gets chastised and anything he says thrown aside. Noone cares about why he did it, noone questions anything, because myeah killing people is bad ok?

What is wrong with this picture? Sure the 8 school children were likely innocent people, however who are we to say the iraqi dissidents werent? I can be a dissident without hurting a fly, hell i do it every day. The difference is marketability folks, everyone loves a serial killer as long as hes holding the old red white and blue flag of deception and lies up high while he does it.

Sorry but you believe in god so your words are worthless. You lose.

Giving logic lessons and then serving me this, eh? Oh and I do not believe in god.

And a frenchman too.

You're finnish. Go back to your usual insignificance.

a luddite with a youtube account, that's a new one

It's not really new that people who oppose technology or in general oppose something, uses it to destroy it. Like unabomber making technological bombs, and trying to get his manifesto in print for all to see (wouldn't be possible without technology). Or terrorists using technology or weapons made in the US, same concept :P

Anyays. The fact that he was a fps-gamers is probably the drop that makes me think now, that he was not a luddite. That does not prevent him, though, from being alienated or whatever as a cause of social pathologies resulting from techno-social integration-- I would think this stuff conncetcs deep. My friend who is a luddite not only hates technology in general but also post-modernism/pragmatism and most new things that society brings forth. It's a deep feeling that works on many levels (at least in his case)

I can see this with myself as well, in the almost opposite direction (in support of technology) manifesting itself in several different views on the world..

tbh i think this post is disrespectful for the ppl murdered

and?

Bet you didnt say the same when the "random usa bomb killed x innocent iraqis" topic came by

Selective conscience ftw, herd mentality ftw

Those are brown people mate. We don't care about them in the west.

So who did he actually kill ?

random school kids?

OT A Bonsai-Action-Nietzsche?

RANKING UPDATE: Pekka-Eric Auvinen grabs 27th place with an 8 kill school shooting

Clearly a l2p issue here + he failed to kill himself and died at the hospital later that night.

crappy finnish connection

bah

This is exactly why you should you always be nice to Lukrek and Kdawg.

ive always been your friend jamerio! ;>

That's funny because his manifesto was a lot like your rants. Delusions of grandeur and disdain for everyone else.

Very tragic indeed for Jokela high school. I have a feeling the school JOPKE should now take precautions