Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[Old Hippy]

I was chased by my mum with a stick, which ended up thrusted into the door behind which I hid. Does it count as an abuse ?

only if it wieghs more than a cast iron frying pan

 

[Crezth]

All of humanity are branches of the same tree if you want to take that tack. The mere use of the metaphor subconsciously suggests a separation between PUA and MRA. Why not another branch for Elliot and the pathologically narcissistic, and yet another for psychopaths?

Specious. PUA and MRA are both fundamentally misogynistic ideologies. They have more in common than, say, PUA and French republicanism.

Who were his videos and papers for? It is unreasonable for me to ascribe these motives?

Not unreasonable, simply illogical. At no point in the papers does he describe it as a manifesto or even as a coherent political framework. At best it's haberdash venting frustration. Even the Unabomber's "manifesto" claimed to be an outline and description of his political beliefs and furthered his worldview through analysis of society, history, etc. I mean, it's proper crazy, but it's also proper political. Elliott's manifesto: Not so much.

Who knows why he did it? Maybe he just wanted to be seen as a good guy? Maybe he wanted people to know why he was going to do what looked like a pretty terrible thing to be doing, and he wanted them to understand? Maybe he was just the slightest bit self-aware and had to put his turmoil down on paper to outrun it in his mind? After all, at some point in the manifesto he says (and I'm paraphrasing) that he "wishes it didn't have to come to this, but the women of the world gave him no choice."

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So how close are PUA/MRM practices to Elliot's murders/suicide? Even if you didn't "explicitly" (minding that you did, if 'unintentionally') say so, you did imply so.

What I did was provide evidence from the same site that Rodgers frequented which demonstrates that like-minded people are common there, and that he was not the anomaly that people have worked so hard to portray him as.

Oh, look. This popped into my feed just as I was writing this. The Guardian thinks "the site was a ticking time bomb."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/elliot-rodger-puahate-forever-alone-reddit-forums?CMP=fb_us

Dtugg didn’t know what had happened until Saturday morning, when he logged in to his account on the forums of bodybuilding.com and saw his inbox flooded with supportive messages.

“God bless you,” read one. “You truly tried,” said another.

That was how he found out that Elliot Rodger had, the night before, killed six people and himself in Isla Vista, California.

“Even though I knew Elliot was creepy,” Dtugg – who agreed to speak on the condition that he be identified solely by his username – told the Guardian, “it was one of the most shocking things that has ever happened to me.”

Dtugg had tangled with Rodger several times on the boards of bodybuilding.com’s “misc” section, and had attempted to give advice to a man he saw as clearly troubled. Others on the forum didn’t know what to make of Rodger.

It was a space given to flamewars and trolling, but they saw Rodger posting things like “Men shouldn't have to look and act like big, animalistic beasts to get women. The fact that women still prioritize brute strength just shows that their minds haven't fully evolved”; “Women are not drawn to indicators of evolutionary fitness. If they were, they'd be all over me”; and “Never insult the style of Elliot Rodger. I’m the most stylish person in the world. Just look at my profile pic. That’s just one of my fabulous outfits. The sweater I’m wearing in the picture is $500 from Neiman Marcus.”

They assumed he was putting on an act. But to Dtugg, something felt wrong.

“I can easily see someone who is really like that making such a video,” he posted on 19 May, just four days before the stabbings and shootings in Isla Vista, in a thread he started about Rodger’s YouTube channel.

The forum Dtugg frequented was part of a wider community of semi-social circles overlapping on websites and message boards – online cliques with their own vernaculars and labyrinthine hierarchies. For a while before the shooting it was Rodger’s world too.

Many of these circles revolved around the social-news site Reddit. There are the PUAs – pick-up artists – whose existence was chronicled in Neil Strauss’s 2005 book The Game, and whose numbers have grown exponentially since. They hang out on the Seduction subreddit (172,473 subscribers) and places like pick-up-artist-forum.com (148,511 members), where they exchange tips on how to build confidence and how to get women into bed.

Then there are the “Red Pill” people, who cluster around a large subreddit forum of the same name and blend pick-up artistry with “men’s rights” advocacy. The name refers to the cult film The Matrix, in which the main character is asked to choose between taking a red pill and waking up to the truth and taking a blue pill that will leave him ignorant. Its constitution states that “women are irrational and inconsistent” and “machiavellian in nature”. It has 53,538 subscribers.

Another subreddit, “ForeverAlone”, is where “incels” hang out. Incel is short for “involuntary celibates”: people who define themselves solely by their inability to sleep with women. It is a definition Elliot Rodger used for himself. Forever Alone has 33,278 subscribers.

More serious Incels congregate on the innocuously named love-shy.com, where forums feature posts like “It upsets me, seeing all the Hot Babes I can't have sex with”. Love-shy has 3,689 members.

Beneath some of these forums and subreddits was PUAhate.com, which one user described as “one of the few truly ‘Red Pill’ communities”. Founded to satirise and discredit pick-up artists, it became a place where sexually frustrated men could go to vent and share pseudo-scientific theories about women. In the spring of 2013, Elliot Rodger found it.

On PUAhate, he wrote in his sprawling manifesto, he had discovered “a forum full of men who are starved of sex, just like me”. What he read, he continued, “confirmed many of the theories I had about how wicked and degenerate women really are”.

“The moderation policy was very laissez-faire,” one PUAhate.com user, who asked to be referred to as Tom, told the Guardian. “There was racism; definitely a lot of misogyny. Elliot Rodger’s type of comment wouldn’t have been uncommon.”

On all these sites, too, was an incendiary mix of people who were deadly serious and those who were trolling – egging the serious people on, for kicks. “It was a mix of people who were really struggling and had never had a kiss, to guys who who were there to get a rise,” said Tom.

Rodger’s manifesto, and the videos he posted to YouTube, were liberally scattered with the lingo of PUA and the Red Pill people. “There is something mentally wrong with the way [women’s] brains are wired,” he wrote, echoing the Red Pill constitution. “They are incapable of reason or thinking rationally.”

Later he echoed classic PUA lingo, describing himself trying to act “cocky and arrogant” – a phrase he repeated a few lines later. To put people down, he described them as “betas” – referring to “beta males”, another PUA trope.

The community even had a phrase for what Rodger did: “Going Sodini”, for George Sodini, who in 2009 killed three women and injured nine other people before killing himself, and who had written extensively online about being rejected by women.

“Many people commented that it was inevitable something like this would happen [again],” Tom said. “Maybe people thought it was humour, maybe no one thought someone would actually do it. But you have a site that cultivates these type of thoughts, and men who have this type of rage.”

Another user, who goes by the name Hypnoreality, was more succinct. “The site was a ticking time bomb,” he said.

Harris O’Malley is a former member of the PUA scene. He now runs a blog called Dr Nerdlove, where he tries to provide a counterpoint to what he calls the “toxic masculinity” of such communities. “[Rodger] found a lot of fellow travellers on Red Pill, and especially on PUAhate,” he told the Guardian.

“There's an amplification effect,” he said. “It spurs people on, and people who come in with disagreements tend to be chased out. It's made clear that dissenting opinions aren't welcome, especially ones that go against the dominant narrative.”

After news of the shooting broke but before PUAhate was taken offline, some users posted adulatory comments to Rodger’s public profile. A couple called him a hero.

But one user of PUAhate who had more than a thousand posts on the site contacted me via reddit to complain that the site was “being depicted as a place where bitter men sat around discussing their hatred of women”. He told me that discussion on the site was usually “more light-hearted than violent”.

He didn’t wish to give his real name. On Reddit, he goes by the username “ElliotRodgerIsAGod”

So yeah. I'm actually going to reverse my previous reversal. MRAs and PUAs are the same thing, because as I have proven, they are in all practices and beliefs two only very slightly different branches of the same ideology: misogyny. Elliot Rodgers was a member of both communities.

If you want to contact these websites about my "defamation," make sure you put them in contact with the Guardian editors as well.

You're allowed to ignore as much of the world as you want, just in the same way that you ignore the posts of others, and threaten to ignore the posts from me. (As you have done it to them, you might as well have done it to me already).

If you're going to continue to be so disgenuine, and so defensive of the MRA/PUA community, then I will gladly do so. It's a waste of my time to engage with people who have no interest in the truth, and who do not even genuinely engage with what I have worked so hard to assemble and systematically prove, based upon some [apparently misguided] well-intentioned belief that readers of this thread simply required more well-documented evidence in order to be convinced of something rather alien to them, even if I think they were probably just too lazy to actually read the details of the story.

If you can't do that, then don't bother responding.

 

[NovaKart]

That article doesn't say women aren't forced into the sex trade. The article argues Mam is taking women out of the sex trade and shoeing them into the only other viable job for women in Cambodia, the perhaps-equally-awful-in-a-different-way garment industry. It mentions some women go back to the sex trade because it is slightly less awful than slaving away for hours on end making cheap t-shirts. I certainly agree that someone using a fake anti-trafficking agenda to perhaps further an only slighty less reprehensible agenda is repulsive, but that does not alter the bigger picture for me.

My conception that most if not all women would choose to not be trafficked as sex slaves if they had any viable alternative remains...

I didn't say the article said that. The article did say that women there were encouraged to fabricate these stories and that there is a lot of confusion between a sex worker and someone who is trafficked.

I have said over and over again that trafficking exists and also that I think people exaggerate how common it is and confuse sex workers with trafficking.

 

[Rashiminos]

Specious. PUA and MRA are both fundamentally misogynistic ideologies. They have more in common than, say, PUA and French republicanism.

The question isn't whether they have some overlap, but whether they are (essentially) the same. The metaphor you provided has them as separate branches, although it would seem more likely that the branches are close because the majority of the participants are male, not because both are characteristically misogynist (PUA obviously is with the pet hypergamy theory).

Not unreasonable, simply illogical. At no point in the papers does he describe it as a manifesto or even as a coherent political framework.

I didn't either. How is the paper going to be coherent with narcissism at work?

Who knows why he did it? Maybe he just wanted to be seen as a good guy? Maybe he wanted people to know why he was going to do what looked like a pretty terrible thing to be doing, and he wanted them to understand?

Presenting his 'worldview,' then? Wanting our understanding to become his understanding?

 

[Crezth]

The question isn't whether they have some overlap, but whether they are (essentially) the same. The metaphor you provided has them as separate branches, although it would seem more likely that the branches are close because the majority of the participants are male, not because both are characteristically misogynist (PUA obviously is with the pet hypergamy theory).

Well, I quite disagree. I see them as both misogynist. The reason I think MRA is misogynist is because MRAs do, think, and say misogynistic things.

I didn't either. How is the paper going to be coherent with narcissism at work?

It's certainly not my fault if you don't know how to analyze writing.

Presenting his 'worldview,' then? Wanting our understanding to become his understanding?

There is an enormous difference between proposing a political worldview and expressing a personal worldview. Manifesto Against War is not Across the River and Into the Trees.

 

[Rashiminos]

What I did was provide evidence from the same site that Rodgers frequented which demonstrates that like-minded people are common there, and that he was not the anomaly that people have worked so hard to portray him as.

Let's recap: The site's name is PUAhate. The site's members criticize PUAs. By self-definition, they're not PUAs. They took the liberty of self-defining other words as well.

Oh, look. This popped into my feed just as I was writing this. The Guardian thinks "the site was a ticking time bomb."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/elliot-rodger-puahate-forever-alone-reddit-forums?CMP=fb_us

A distinction Guardian can actually make, along with "blending" of PUA and MRA ideas (what's to blend if the ideas are not different on some levels?).

So yeah. I'm actually going to reverse my previous reversal.

Including your apology. Nice to know that was also false.

MRAs and PUAs are the same thing, because as I have proven, they are in all practices and beliefs two only very slightly different branches of the same ideology: misogyny. Elliot Rodgers was a member of both communities.

Cheezy posts an article without noticing that it part-way contradicts his point and refers primarily to a site that is neither of those things.

If you're going to continue to be so disgenuine, and so defensive of the MRA/PUA community, then I will gladly do so. It's a waste of my time to engage with people who have no interest in the truth, and who do not even genuinely engage with what I have worked so hard to assemble and systematically prove, based upon some [apparently misguided] well-intentioned belief that readers of this thread simply required more well-documented evidence in order to be convinced of something rather alien to them, even if I think they were probably just too lazy to actually read the details of the story.

If you can't do that, then don't bother responding.

I'll yield the floor to other posters' opinions on how lazy Cheezy and I are being with reading the details of various posts/stories.

Spoiler :

Yes, how conveniently it popped into the feed. I'll be sure to note that synchronicity.

Well, I quite disagree. I see them as both misogynist. The reason I think MRA is misogynist is because MRAs do, think, and say misogynistic things.

Is it characteristic of MRAs, or is it because misogynists can wear the guise of MRAs and go unnoticed?

It's certainly not my fault if you don't know how to analyze writing.

There is an enormous difference between proposing a political worldview and expressing a personal worldview. Manifesto Against War is not Across the River and Into the Trees.

Yeah, so why are you on this 'political', 'manifesto' tangent? I don't recall saying that on page 14.

 

[Pegasus_77]

1. Why did your mum chase you with a stick?

2. How big was the stick?

3. Are you still in hiding?

1.I annoyed her. She glared up. I forgot the exact reason(I will ask my mum later). My mum is overall a gentle women so I really freaked out when I saw her chasing me like a lunatic.
I hid in the washroom and she yelled at me to go out but I certainly didnt. I felt like a criminal chased by a ferocious cop. Then she thrusted the pole into the plastic door and slightly grazed my arm. I cried. And the chasing stopped. When I turned myself in, she slapped my forearm, but then regretted thrusting the pole.
From this accident, I knew a gentle woman could be crazy all of a sudden.
2.shall be called a pole instead of a stick. The pole was for hanging clothes and it is hard.
3.surely no. It happened like 12 years ago when I was a pupil.

 

[Senethro]

Unprejudiced inquiry into root causes.

And we prefer man-census.

Does the MRA hypothesis offer an explanation for why he chose men as his first three victims?

Actually there are a couple of horrifying answers to this. First is he explicitly says in his document that he was going to secure his flat as a torture area for women. After killing his flatmates he was going to lure women in and kill them before heading out on the shooting spree.

Second is he was racist. His postings on the removed site PUAhate show him insisting that full Asians (like his flatmates) shouldn't be able to get girlfriends and that Eurasians (like himself) should. This among other statements suggest a racist sexual jealousy as well as animosity that women chose them, and not him.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

So, he's a nutter in all the ways there is, but it was his MRA ideology that was the root to the killings? Is that a correct interpretation of your ideas?

Shouldn't this guy and his alleged MRA association have its own thread btw?

 

[Old Hippy]

Does the MRA hypothesis offer an explanation for why he chose men as his first three victims?

yes, he was a Zeta, not Alpha or Beta tpye male

http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/

if you check out the site scroll down to "what is a Zeta male anyway"
a comment from that article "I was downstream, to an 'alpha male subservient to a female' situation""1000 beta male cronies cant beat you"

Spoiler :

Zeta •a year ago




Id like to share a true life experience. I was downstream, to an 'alpha male subservient to a female' situation, for sometime, at work. Alpha males, are resourceful in using 3rd party's to do what they don't have the guts to do, and usually this is driven by this female, or at least initiated. So, here come the alpha male's cronies, the betas- it's as if all these people have no responsibility to produce, or do they're job- just constant mobbing and targeting co-workers to keep power, and makes sure things are done they're way- and in they're personal best interests. Now, me being the classic Zeta, sees right through this- and I think, I think, I think and I plan - and anticipate the next move- and workout the most debilitating response to inflict max damage on alpha males' ego and stature- and here's the key- in front of as many people as possible!, all in the spirit being fair and non-assuming and even docile to a point. When you have the moral high ground and you know it- 1000 beta male cronies cant beat you- and these betas are the ones who's respect and trust you will earn, for in actuality they want to be Zeta's but are afraid.
Needless to say, I have become SO good at my role, I strike fear in the hearts of these alpha males, as not only am I tactically proficient, I have strategic genius. Remember, when you are on top only place to go is - down, This is your leverage, against the alpha- and they need to be reminded again and again of this. Manipulative females use this leverage, and seducing the alpha to make a successful or unsuccessful attempt- of intimacy - is in it's essence illegitimate in one form or another in the work place- or at least after has happened the female convinces, the alpha that attempted this- that she can turn it illegitimate. This is the point of no return, for the alpha- he either stands up- and let's the chips fall where they may- or he cows. Once he cows- it's all over. The Zeta male, would call the bluff and not be afraid to go down- that's what makes a Zeta male what he is- he isn't afraid of failure- alpha and beta males are petrified of failure- and huddle together like frightened rabbits. Zeta males, see and understand they're fear more than they do, this give the Zeta the strength and purpose of cause to be Zetas' It's truly an honorable way to be.

Ill go as far to say that they real 'greats' of the world are Zeta's not alphas. Ronald Reagan was a Zeta, not an alpha - the pioneers that settled our country are Zetas, and I would go as far as to say Jesus Christ was a zeta- where his persecutors were from the alpha controlled establishment. I think this is a fair - analogy. I don't think the Zeta concept is new- just that it has been abandoned, not due to quest for power, but fear not to stay protected by the power shell. I think, this type of man you are is formed early in life.

Loopy land... leave your sanity at the door

 

[Senethro]

hahahahaha, what a hatchet job.

nice context-less poster of the 'don't be that girl' campaign in the 'article' as well.


This kid felt he was entitled not because of his maleness and patriarchy (that absurd everyboogieman again) but because of his narcissism - you know, that thing that goes hand in hand with entitlement?

Here, more narcissism



I think this can be blamed on toddler-level mentality better than 'patriarchy'. If I can't have this toy, I'll break it, so nobody can have it! This is not the result of patriarchy. A toddler is not absorbing and showcasing patriarchal attitudes by destroying a toy when ordered to share - a toddler is being a toddler.

I'm sure its possible to be an MRA without being an obnoxious jerk to the people you know in real life (because, y'know, MRAs only exist on the internet where they don't have to do real activism).

The problem is that these ideological environments prevent crazy people getting help and go some way to radicalizing them.

 

[Rashiminos]

@Graffito
That link is broken, it's missing a curse word due to auto-filter.
Nevermind.

The problem is that these ideological environments prevent crazy people getting help and go some way to radicalizing them.

In many cases, yes.

 

[Senethro]

Graffito, that page doesn't exist. Did you mistype the link or did it get whacked for some reason?

Edit: Found it. While its an interesting insight into how crazy MRAs are, I don't think it sheds any light on Rodgers

 

[Gori the Grey]

Could we give the groups of men that we're trying to describe here a different name?

Could we call them Backlashers or something?

I think easily half of my problem with attributing this spree to "men's rights activism" has to do with that phrase, which seems inappropriate in a number of ways.

First, I know this is just my personal association, but the phrase first got fixed in my mind from a local cable show in which two pudgy, balding divorcees who got what they thought were raw custody deals sat around and grumbled about the fact and about making custody laws more fair. Pathetic, but not menacing. And from this site, I learn about other “men’s rights” issues that strike me as potentially legitimate, like opposition to circumcision as a form of MGM.

Second, the dirtbags in question aren't "activists" for "rights" (as the above maybe genuinely are); they're just entitled misogynistic jerks. Calling them “men’s rights activists” seems to me to leech the noble notions of both “rights” and “activism” of much of their meaning.

Third, should we do them the respect of calling them by the name they themselves have adopted, especially since the dirtbag version are trying to gain legitimacy from the at-least-possibly-more-legitmate version and implicitly mock the notion of “women’s rights”?

Fourth, if we discredit the notion of “men’s rights,” I’m concerned we will simultaneously discredit the notion of “women’s rights.” Now, of course, the wisest approach to a more egalitarian society is always just to push for human rights, but is the concept of “women’s rights” regarded by feminists having so completely done its work that we’re ready to see it invalidated? I honestly don’t know.

Fifth, a "workers rights activist" who killed two capitalists but also four workers would have at best a mixed legacy in his activism. This guy set “men’s rights” back by four men.

 

[metatron]

So yeah. I'm actually going to reverse my previous reversal. MRAs and PUAs are the same thing, because as I have proven, they are in all practices and beliefs two only very slightly different branches of the same ideology: misogyny. Elliot Rodgers was a member of both communities.

If you want to contact these websites about my "defamation," make sure you put them in contact with the Guardian editors as well.

You have "proven" nothing.
You have demonstrated that certain subreddits are frequented by theoretically illiterate morons some of whom are even conflating MRA and PUA theory (which really takes a special brand of superficiality - and probably misogyny as a motivating force - to do).
The rest is association fallacy.

 

[Old Hippy]

I think easily half of my problem with attributing this spree to "men's rights activism" has to do with that phrase, which seems inappropriate in a number of ways.

First, I know this is just my personal association, but the phrase first got fixed in my mind from a local cable show in which two pudgy, balding divorcees who got what they thought were raw custody deals sat around and grumbled about the fact and about making custody laws more fair. Pathetic, but not menacing. And from this site, I learn about other “men’s rights” issues that strike me as potentially legitimate, like opposition to circumcision as a form of MGM.

.

I steer away from Men rights activism, as a conversation about child custody is usually followed by along vindictive about the ex wife containing every foul word you can imagine,(not me ) it is changing but that was a childs rights issue, about better access to both parents. there is a good campaige here for better male mental health,due to high male suicide rates, check up on a mate was the lead in, in both cases legitamate male issues were tackled without mentioning Feminism, if the MRA were really interested in improving the lot of males, they would do it without mentioning feminism
male issues should stand on their own merrits, without recourse to a scapegoat...

 

[Gori the Grey]

Actually there are a couple of horrifying answers to this. First is he explicitly says in his document that he was going to secure his flat as a torture area for women. After killing his flatmates he was going to lure women in and kill them before heading out on the shooting spree.

Second is he was racist. His postings on the removed site PUAhate show him insisting that full Asians (like his flatmates) shouldn't be able to get girlfriends and that Eurasians (like himself) should. This among other statements suggest a racist sexual jealousy as well as animosity that women chose them, and not him.

Thanks for this. But it brings me back to one of my earlier considerations on this case. Is being resentful toward women and men for all of the sex that they're getting and you're not misogyny, specifically?

We're going to need a whole thread to unpack this guy's racism too. I've never so much as heard an idea like that. Or is it just white-supremacy in its degree: having even some white in me makes me better than someone who has none?

Maybe shouldn't put this in the same post, but don't want to double post either:

On the (by now only) nominal topic of this thread. One can say, with the video maker, that, yes, violence is violence: a woman physically abusing a man should be regarded as being as reprehensible as a man physically abusing a woman. But, and I think this is one of the reasons for the differing reactions in the video, suffering-violence is not suffering-violence. When a larger, stronger person suffers violence from a smaller, less physically-strong person, that stronger person is both suffering violence and voluntarily submitting to the violence, could stop it but is choosing not to. The two cases are assymetrical on that end of the abuse. I’m not claiming one is worse than the other. Beating up on someone who can’t stop you is terrible. Beating up on someone who is voluntarily relinquishing the right to self defense is terrible too. I’m just claiming they are different, and that that difference might account for the differing reactions from the bystanders as much as the gender difference per se.

 

[Borachio]

Too many people who I counsel and read my posts (here and elsewhere) assume that this Rule means that I&#8217;m advocating the maintaining a position of dominance at the expense of their partners; far from it. I do however advocate that people &#8211; young men in particular &#8211; develop a better sense of self-worth and a better understanding of their true efficacy in their relationships (assuming you decide to become involved in one). Don&#8217;t get me wrong, both sexes are guilty of manipulation; Battered women go back to their abusive boyfriends/husbands and <snip> whipped men compromise themselves and their ambitions to better serve their girlfriends insecurities. My intent in promoting this Rule is to open the eyes of young men who are already predisposed to devaluing themselves and placing women as the goal of their lives rather than seeing themselves as the PRIZE to be sought after. Compromise is always going to be a part of any relationship, but what&#8217;s key is realizing when that compromise becomes the result of manipulation, what is in effect and developing the confidence to be uncompromising in those situations. This is where a firm understanding of the cardinal rule of relationships becomes essential.

I've got mixed views about this PUA business. I mean, for sure, a better sense of self-worth is key to all sorts of beneficial behaviours, imo.

But the rest of the PUA line? I'm pretty confident that's not how it works at all. Yet what precisely is wrong with PUA theory?

How about mutual respect in partnership? Isn't that important?

I've seen some "successful" relationships where one partner was seemingly definitely in control over the other. Some of them as long-lasting as you could wish. I wonder just how successful they really were, though. Or even whether the superficial appearance was a true reflection of the underlying reality.

 

[Gori the Grey]

what I have worked so hard to assemble and systematically prove, based upon some [apparently misguided] well-intentioned belief that readers of this thread simply required more well-documented evidence in order to be convinced of something rather alien to them

Cheezy, I for one appreciate your having gone to the trouble of assembling all of this stuff.

I've been disagreeing with you in part because we've been approaching the issue differently. I've been trying to establish the root cause of the killer's actions; you've been using this incident to cast light on a certain strain of misogyny operative in our society.

For all you've done, you haven't changed my view that the root cause of the killer's actions is a deep-seated sense of entitlement that long predates and wide outspans the sense of entitlement relative to women. From age 3 he reports resenting another kid getting the first slice of cake from his birthday cake. He resents people who win the lottery instead of him.

In someone like that, when he reached puberty, it was nearly inevitable that he would also come to resent women for violating his sense of entitlement relative to them.

But you have made your case: that he was involved in these sites, and that they amplified his sense of entitlement relative to women to the murderous level it ultimately reached.