Oregon Shooter and 4chan

[gingerhobbit]

So it looks like the Oregon shooter posted a warning on 4chan before he did it. And the response of those shitbags? Some mocked him. The rest urged him to do it...even offered helpful tips for how to be more effective. They all used the language of the MRA and 'pick-up artists,' with lots of references to 'beta males.' Posting this because of a conversation we had a while back about whether 4chan was still the asshole of the internet, or not.

http://www.candidslice.com/killer-p...urs-before-umpqua-community-college-massacre/

 

[JickyJuly]

I'm confused about their use of the word "beta". Are they using it positively or....?

 

[Gen]

@JickyJuly Beta is their descriptor for weak, undesirable guys (in their view) compared to Alphas who are the douchey jock bros that all the ladies want and sleep with. It's a very high school mentality. A lot of dudes self-identify as betas. It's weird.

 

[Guy]

Pick Up Artists suck!

 

[gingerhobbit]

I'm confused about their use of the word "beta". Are they using it positively or....?

It gets convoluted, but from what I can tell there are two types of men who hate women: alphas and betas.

Alphas consider themselves superior to women and able to easily manipulate them. They consider men who respect women to be beta males...weak, ineffectual, etc.

Guys who are socially awkward and hate women for, basically, not giving them pussy call themselves betas. Even though it's a pejorative, they wear it proudly, like geek.

In that thread, there seem to be both alphas and betas. The alphas are using 'beta' with a negative connotation, like the guy who tells him that some beta males may try to protect the women. The betas seem to be using 'beta' in the context of solidarity with the soon-to-be shooter.

If you notice, one of the posters who encourages him to be 'legendary' has an avatar with the photo of the guy who shot up those kids at UC-Irvine because he felt that women weren't giving him a chance.

Guys who identify as betas half-joke about the 'beta uprising' in which they kill guys who are not socially awkward (alphas) and women who won't fuck them.

The whole thing is just skeevy as hell.

ETA: As Guy alludes to, the alpha/beta bullshit emerged from the pick-up artist community and is now widely used by men's rights douches as well.

 

[JickyJuly]

@JickyJuly Beta is their descriptor for weak, undesirable guys (in their view) compared to Alphas who are the douchey jock bros that all the ladies want and sleep with. It's a very high school mentality. A lot of dudes self-identify as betas. It's weird.

Ahh. So they really were self-identifying. I guess I was hoping I missed something. Holy cow.
Edit to add: Thanks @Guy and @gingerhobbit ! Urban dictionary did not teach me very much on this one.

 

[Sevrin]

So fucked up. So sad.

 

[Miss_D]

I know a guy who thinks he's gods-gift to earth and walks around calling all the guys (who aren't in his clique) beta's. He's the doucheyest of douches....

But I've never met a guy who calls himself a beta and seems to be proud of that...

Regardless, this is all so disturbing & creepy as shit.

 

[fandango]

WTF is wrong with some people. This kind of shit makes the internet a very bad place. I kind of feel like the people that egged him on should also be tried as accessories to murder too.

 

[dilligaf0]

WTF is wrong with some people. This kind of shit makes the internet a very bad place. I kind of feel like the people that egged him on should also be tried as accessories to murder too.

Sadly they won't be because of their "First Amendment Rights" bullshit.

 

[evie19]

Not surprised this happened...those people from 4chan have some BIG mental problems ...

 

[MissJameson]

The saddest part of this, is things like this get posted like this a lot on 4chan. "fake" threats or those that go unfulfilled get posted massively, the community is really just kinda desensitized to it, and it's gross.

 

[EroticEevee]

These guys get so violent when women don't give them attention...like yeah, they can sense the creepy vibes off you.

 

[eclipse76]

No one on that board could ever distinguish a legit crazy person from an idiot trying to be edgy on the Internet, hence no one treating it seriously, like the rest of 4chan. Hell, until the investigation confirms it, it's not even proven it's actually the shooter who posted that thread.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

No one on that board could ever distinguish a legit crazy person from an idiot trying to be edgy on the Internet, hence no one treating it seriously, like the rest of 4chan. Hell, until the investigation confirms it, it's not even proven it's actually the shooter who posted that thread.

Exactly. There is a massive amount of drama in the world, people claiming they are victims and are going to do something dramatic from killing someone or themselves, filing lawsuits, organizing boycotts etc. The anonymous nature of the internet amplifies the drama queens and 4chan attracts even more. We don't see stories on all the death, bomb, and hacking threats that never materialize.

 

[Cupcake_viv]

I hate my gut feeling that tells me whenever there is a school shooting, 4chan has to be involved. Not saying that the poster was the Oregon shooter, but the likelihood of him being an active 4channer is high.

It sucks when the 1st Amendment gets so distorted to allow sites like 4chan and threads like the Red Pill to exist.

 

[SexySteph]

It sucks when the 1st Amendment gets so distorted to allow sites like 4chan and threads like the Red Pill to exist.

What????

That's not the 1st Amendment being distorted. Those things shouldn't be gotten rid of because the speech makes people uncomfortable.

This particular 4Chan thread was beyond MESSED UP but all of 4Chan isn't like that. This thread should have been locked as soon as it popped up but sites like 4Chan shouldn't be banned completely. And as for Red Pill, yeah it's messed up too but it's not like it's just people sitting around making hate speech. The first amendment is right to free speech. Not "free speech as long as it doesn't offend somebody".

 

[JoleneBrody]

These guys get so violent when women don't give them attention...like yeah, they can sense the creepy vibes off you.

This had nothing to do with what happened.

 

[eclipse76]

This particular 4Chan thread was beyond MESSED UP but all of 4Chan isn't like that. This thread should have been locked as soon as it popped up but sites like 4Chan shouldn't be banned completely.

I don't think it's particularly messed up for /r9k/ or /b/ standards, kind of low hanging fruit. If they ban these type of threads, they'll have to ban half of the board. Shutting down a board entirely has happened a few years ago with the edgy racists douchebags from /news/ (r9k has been banned for a long while too), but the problem is that these boards members then poured all over the other normal boards with their douchebaggery, hence they created /pol/ for "political" discussions in order to isolate the cancer, sort of.

 

[Teagan]

Thing is people dont realize that freedom of speech does not cover inciting lawless action. Everyone who tries to use it to defend inciting things always fails to understand/know that part of it. You cant shout Fire in a crowded theater type thing. So if people did incite this guy they absolutely are not protected under the first amendment.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Thing is people dont realize that freedom of speech does not cover inciting lawless action. Everyone who tries to use it to defend inciting things always fails to understand/know that part of it. You cant shout Fire in a crowded theater type thing. So if people did incite this guy they absolutely are not protected under the first amendment.

Actually you can shout fire in crowded theater. The most obvious time you can is when there is, in fact, a fire, or even if you smell smoke. Speech is only illegal if would likely result in IMMINENT illegal action.
A man standing on a car with a bullhorn who has the attention of an angry crowd urging them to burn the place down, and kill the pigs would probably be illegal. The same words used to be somebody on the periphery of the crowd, in a loud voice would not because it would not likely result in an unlawful action.

In the case of written words on the internet, it is hard for me to imagine a case where they would pass the imminent test, which has been the law of the land since the Branderbug case. Advocating for illegal action in the indefinite future IS legal, e.g. "We should hang those motherfucking congressman" as is "shoot the Christians dude"

 

[VeronicaChaos]

Sort of a rant here but whatever:

Personally, I don't have a stance on gun control. I can see both sides of the argument. While I personally am not a huge fan of guns, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be outlawed. On the other hand...guns can be super dangerous. So for me it's up in the air. However, what I do know is that regardless of if guns help contribute to the problem, one thing that would make a difference would be better mental health resources. Maybe not in this case, but on a whole I think we would have less of these incidents if we gave a damn about our mentally ill. However, if I say anything like that, people immediately act as though I'm defending guns. Because we live in a world where everything is black and white and there couldn't possibly be multiple causes to the problem. It's frustrating trying to make a point that is completely separate from gun control, something that we should all be able to get behind regardless of our opinion on gun control, and instead people use it as yet another fucking launching point for their opinion on gun control. Fucking...people. This is why nothing gets done.

 

[Teagan]

You know what I meant with the shouting Fire thing man. Just dont.

The man standing on a car shouting things to instigate people and someone goes and does it makes the guy inciting it guilty as well. So does the person on the outskirts shouting and someone listens and acts. It can be one on one or a crowd setting. The key is inciting such and someone doing it. The internet counts as such if it could be proven which I very much believe it could.

So say this 4chan poster turns out to really be the shooter and someone told him to go do it and incited him in some way (just to clarify I did not read the thread nor will I cause 4chan is not my cup of tea, this is speculation and what ifs from me) those people who did so could absolutely be prosecuted and free speech will not cover them at all.

You can say a lot in America. You can not say anything in America.

 

[Sevrin]

Sort of a rant here but whatever:

Personally, I don't have a stance on gun control. I can see both sides of the argument. While I personally am not a huge fan of guns, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be outlawed. On the other hand...guns can be super dangerous. So for me it's up in the air. However, what I do know is that regardless of if guns help contribute to the problem, one thing that would make a difference would be better mental health resources. Maybe not in this case, but on a whole I think we would have less of these incidents if we gave a damn about our mentally ill. However, if I say anything like that, people immediately act as though I'm defending guns. Because we live in a world where everything is black and white and there couldn't possibly be multiple causes to the problem. It's frustrating trying to make a point that is completely separate from gun control, something that we should all be able to get behind regardless of our opinion on gun control, and instead people use it as yet another fucking launching point for their opinion on gun control. Fucking...people. This is why nothing gets done.

I won't disagree that the mentally ill are very poorly served in the U.S., and in many other places. Canada isn't a whole lot better. A lot of other societal ills, like homelessness, can equally be traced to the lack of resources provided for the treatment mental illness. The thing is, the U.S. does not have a monopoly on mental illness, but it does make it very easy for people to obtain weapons, and considers gun violence as an intrinsic part of its national heritage. It also has the highest murder rate of all developed countries.

 

[SexySteph]

You know what I meant with the shouting Fire thing man. Just dont.

The man standing on a car shouting things to instigate people and someone goes and does it makes the guy inciting it guilty as well. So does the person on the outskirts shouting and someone listens and acts. It can be one on one or a crowd setting. The key is inciting such and someone doing it. The internet counts as such if it could be proven which I very much believe it could.

So say this 4chan poster turns out to really be the shooter and someone told him to go do it and incited him in some way (just to clarify I did not read the thread nor will I cause 4chan is not my cup of tea, this is speculation and what ifs from me) those people who did so could absolutely be prosecuted and free speech will not cover them at all.

You can say a lot in America. You can not say anything in America.

4Chan and RedPill (the two sites are covered by free speech that @Cupcake_viv feels shouldn't be) are covered by free speech. The sites shouldn't be shut down just because they're offensive to some. Maybe a few of those posters in the thread were inciting but I didn't read any that I'd say were. Intent is important in situations like this and if these posters were taken to court it'd be hard to pin any liability for the shooters actions on them because most of them were just mocking what they thought was an obvious troll, not intending to get someone to murder people.

No one was arguing that inciting violence should be covered under free speech. Simply that it's ludicrous to say that allowing sites like 4Chan or the subreddit RedPill is a distortion of the 1st Amendment because they're offensive.

 

[Teagan]

My comment was directed at anyone thinking someone who egged someone else on could not be prosecuted because of free speech cause that simply is not true.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

You know what I meant with the shouting Fire thing man. Just dont.

The man standing on a car shouting things to instigate people and someone goes and does it makes the guy inciting it guilty as well. So does the person on the outskirts shouting and someone listens and acts. It can be one on one or a crowd setting. The key is inciting such and someone doing it. The internet counts as such if it could be proven which I very much believe it could.

So say this 4chan poster turns out to really be the shooter and someone told him to go do it and incited him in some way (just to clarify I did not read the thread nor will I cause 4chan is not my cup of tea, this is speculation and what ifs from me) those people who did so could absolutely be prosecuted and free speech will not cover them at all.

You can say a lot in America. You can not say anything in America.

You are entitled to your opinion, and prior to the Brandenburg V Ohio case you might even be right. The Schenck case, where the shouting fire in the crowded theater came from set a lower standard "clear and present danger". It was overturned in 1969. I'd suggest that you read the case I cited or at least the links I posted.

If you have an example where somebody was successfully prosecuted for written speech advocating violence, I love to hear about it.

You can write anything in America, except for classified material.

 

[Teagan]

Youre obviously missing the entire point and im not spending my time arguing. Free speech does not give you the right to say anything you want ever. There are rules. Period. That's not my opinion but a fact. Whether or not someone chooses to prosecute you is a different matter entirely and with times changing and politics and the internet coming more and more into scope it's just a matter of time before even the internet is policed quiet a bit more, including inciting speech.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Youre obviously missing the entire point and im not spending my time arguing. Free speech does not give you the right to say anything you want ever. There are rules. Period. That's not my opinion but a fact. Whether or not someone chooses to prosecute you is a different matter entirely and with times changing and politics and the internet coming more and more into scope it's just a matter of time before even the internet is policed quiet a bit more, including inciting speech.

What are these rules? Free speech does give you the right to say virtually anything you want and especially write anything you want. You are specifically allowed to advocate the use of violence against the government or a generalized group. For instance, Westboro Baptist is allowed to advocate the killing of gays. I can say that all Basics should be castrated, and if I said I'm going to castrate some Basics today somebody on the forum is allowed to say use a dull knife to cut off their balls, he can do so without fear of prosecution. Threatening violence against a specific person is generally considered assault, so I couldn't threaten to castrate Kool Ray.

There is nothing illegal in what the folks on 4chan did period. In other countries what they did is possibly illegal. The Supreme Court has consistently squashed attempts to regulate the Internet, and I can show you a dozen cases to prove my point.

 

[Teagan]

Dude if you wanna know something use Google, not me. Come on now. Especially when all you're gonna do is go off topic to try and support how you feel despite the actual law and what it does and does not cover. I dont have time to google cases for you nor do I care to. Nor am I gonna waste time speculating with what ifs and what the future may hold. Free speech does not cover every single thing some people wanna say and that's all there is to it. That should not be a hard concept to grasp I think.