[dropcap]I[/dropcap] have something to say to the mainstream, blue pill zombies in the world; in particular the skeezoids over at Jezebel and an OCWeekly hack named Matt Coker. Scott Dekraai was wrong to murder eight people, including his ex-wife.
And in other news, giraffes are really tall compared to chihuahuas, it is dangerous to look for gas leaks with a lit kitchen match and wiping your ass in the woods with Poison Ivy is a really bad idea.
Can we move on now? Can we actually try to learn something a little more complex and meaningful than “E-w-w-w! Mur-der is b-a-a-a-a-d!” Or is figuring out what would be obvious to a turnip as far as your thinking can take you?
Recently, TDOM posted a short opinion piece here in which he examined the public reactions to two separate incidents of violent crime. He cited both Catherine Kieu Becker, who drugged and tied up her husband, then severed his penis with a kitchen knife and threw it in a garbage disposal. The other was the recent tragedy involving the above mentioned Dekraai case.
The thrust of his piece was not on the motive for either crime, but on public reaction to both, which, as TDOM aptly pointed out, was vastly different.
Friend Ferdinand Bardamu also addressed the tragedy on his blog. His piece explored not only the differences in reaction to these two events, but also challenged readers to examine how that difference in reaction affects our ability to understand and possibly address similar, future tragedies that might occur.
This quote from his piece was also posted into the Coker rant:
[box type=”alert” icon=”none”]”[D]o I expect this horrific crime to inspire any introspection on the part of Americans, or any questioning of the role of feminism in poisoning the relationship between men and women? Nope.”[/box]
I don’t expect us to learn anything from this tragedy either, any more than we did, say, from Thomas James Ball’s self-immolation. Thanks to a media infested with one-dimensional (and one-trick) morons like Coker, no matter how many get slaughtered or burn themselves to death or eat guns, the public won’t get anything more than watery analysis and platitudes. And when anyone actually does try to inject some thoughtfulness into the discussion, we get their attacks. Of course, we are all pro murder; mass murder. We are also pro baby killing, after they come out of the womb. We hunt endangered species for fun and torture children when the mood strikes us. What, you didn’t think just hating women and playing video games would hold our interest forever, did you?
Telling, isn’t it? We have no problem associating poverty with violent crime, as well as alcohol and drug abuse. We even stretch things (way past the point of reason) to explain violence in women, whether murdering their husbands or their children, with now standardized claims of domestic abuse and/or postpartum depression.
But let an MRA write one line on a blog pointing to the idea that some violent crime might be inspired by ripping someone to shreds in a family court, taking their children from them and their property, and then leaving them a life lived under the thumb of state functionaries, and you get something else. You get ideologues with tunnel vision crawling out of the wood work to accuse you of wearing a tin foil hat and advocating murder.
Jezebel.com, the same website (God, do I have to say this again?) whose readers and staff are on record bragging about physically attacking and injuring their husbands and boyfriends, hyped things up with their big headline:
Men’s Rights Activists Come Out In Support Of Salon Killer
Ok, so the ploy here is simple, though not near as imaginative as fembots would like to, well, imagine. They think that by twisting valid exploration into what happened on that terrible day into a pro-mass murder spin job, that they might succeed in derailing a men’s movement that is pushing its way right into their faces. It won’t work.
First, anyone with enough of a brain to click through and actually read the source material for these hit pieces will see they are lying. And two, anyone who doesn’t is more than likely a member of their own neurotic choir. What they are doing here is wasting their time, and saving us on ours. They are recruiting for us, and I expect doing a pretty good job of it. That Jezebel had to rely on the mentally flatulent David Futrelle to mine comments was just a bonus.
Anything they criticize will be debunked by anyone who can think, or see through bullshit. In other words, our demographic. With every dishonest keystroke, these people are driving readers to our sites that have never been exposed to anything remotely truthful.
Tangling with the MRM in this way is a loser for anyone stupid enough to do it, and only finds appeal with bigots and the intellectually challenged. In other words, their demographic. God, I love being an MRA.
It’s not really fair here to just keep the focus on these clowns, or even to rob them of what they come here to see. I don’t want to disappoint them in that respect.
What happened just days ago was indeed a tragedy. And it should be one that prompts us to exhaust all possibilities in efforts to sort out what happened and why. Since this story involved a custody dispute, we should (call me crazy) take a look at what we know about that.
One thing we do know is that family courts are breeding grounds for conflict, turmoil and often violence. Even the most stable and rational of people wander near the breaking point from their experience in those places. And there are a number of unfortunates who could not hold it together and have ended up killing themselves and/or others.
Another thing we know is that the system is corrupt. We know that ex parte restraining orders are issued by the truckload, based solely on allegation, without so much as a smidgeon of evidence to support their worth. We also know that those courts have become profit centers, sucking up Title IV-D money like mobsters at a casino, largely by confiscating the income of men who are discriminated against in those same courts. It’s a can of worms too complicated and too real for the likes of Jezebel and Coker to handle.
Indeed, while we reject any legitimacy in the actions of a murderer, thinking people don’t just leave it there. Thinking people are saddened, but not shocked, that eight people got taken out. Thinking people are shocked that the numbers are so low. And that applies to our society as a whole whether the problems we address here were at play in the Dekraai case or not.
We still don’t know many of the details of that horrific case, and it is likely we never will. But trying to sort out what happened and why should be part of what happens in a culture that wants to curtail violence, not create more of it.
