>>exolym+(OP)
"There Won’t Be Anything Special About Your Shooting"

Well yeah, but it would be special, if they came up with other target, something in line with ETA/IRA targets, in which case they could become even heroes for significant part of population.

"The “great men” of history — the emperors, the conquerors — aren’t remembered for the death and destruction they wrought."

Sure, nobody remembers Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc. What is this guy smoking? Oh yeah, right, Hitler is the most remembered for great German highways he built. Nobody remembers those 50M dead Chinese from Mao's made famine.

>>Markof+f4
Why the negativity?

> Sure, nobody remembers Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc. What is this guy smoking?

I'm pretty sure the author used the word "remembered" in the sense of "recognized" or "admired". Could they have chosen a more precise word? Yes, but to me it is clear what they mean.

>>Markof+f4
To be fair, nobody remembers the US killing 20% of the Korean population. People remember what's geopolitically advantageous and reemphasized regularly. Most people don't remember all the people killed in the Murrah building. It's usefulness in the public consciousness is long gone. The MOVE bombings, the battle of Blair mountain, or Tulsa until very recently.

>>exolym+(OP)
Thanks to the author for writing this. As a young man who has come out the other side, I appreciate the courage of the author to put this message out there and expose themselves like this on the open internet.

I hope we as a society can continue to be more open about ways to communicate frustration, depression, and sadness. This way it won't be pent up released in an explosive event like a shooting.

>>exolym+(OP)
This reads well-meaning, but ultimately misdirected. There is no solid data corroborating the "school shooters are bullied" narrative - in fact, many of them have a long history of being bullies themselves, which then gets twisted from "kids try to avoid the weird kid who does disturbing things" into "poor little baby had no friends".

Disabled, queer, poor teens are not shooting up schools. The profile of a school shooter is overwhelmingly white, male and middle/upper class. A shooting is an ultimate tantrum for which the perpetrator is never held accountable.

>>hellof+e6
I often wonder how many of these open letters are read by the person they're directed at, presumably very few. I think some of the points they say make sense, and if they hung around on 4chan or 8chan and posted very abbreviated versions of these points, then that might at least reach some potential shooters. But posting on a substack is a bit like screaming into the void even if it was, as you say, well-meaning.

>>exolym+(OP)
The writings of Columbine shooters are public information but never reported by the media.

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/

>>mushbi+j5
You don't need most people to remember you to be remembered and recognition changes over time, someone seen as villain can change in few months/years into hero. It comes down what are your goals, after all people will never agree on everything and will have always different opinions.

The most recent example is certain Eastern European politician best known for corruption, purging opposition, making headlines together with certain Russian president last year, now seen as the saint, because for some simpletons enemy of their enemy becomes their friend.

>>vaylia+75
Hitler is recognized and admired by many. If the change in world order happens when his significance is still fresh, he will surface back as a universally admired figure because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with).

>>Comrad+18
> because it is not very difficult to piece together what the Nazi regime actually did vs what the Soviet occupiers accused them of (and what the US went along with).

Could you entertain us with more detail on what you mean here? Germany's atrocities are well documented across Europe ( and North Africa). The Soviets had nothing to do with Drancy or Bergen-Belsen for instance. We know of the Auschwitz horrors through Polish resistance fighters who infiltrated it and managed to escape.

There are some things that the Soviets tried to blame on the Germans, and it was certainly believable ( Katyn massacre), but we knew then and know now that it was indeed the Soviets. So what do you mean? What is it, for you, that Germany and Hitler are getting the blame for that was actually the Soviets' work? I don't see what it could possibly be to wash Hitler's image for anyone, unless your starting position is a bit off.

>>smcl+X6
I mean, some of the OP's points seem to vacate a lot of responsibility from where it's due, so in that sense they would definitely speak to their target audience.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there are often good reasons why young men who shoot up schools are excluded by their peers. If anything needs to be targeted, it's their ability to self-reflect on that and deal with (often not real but perceived) rejection and confrontation in a healthy way, but I doubt that this will go well.

>>hellof+e6
> Disabled, queer, poor teens are not shooting up schools.

Because 1. there's support networks for them, and 2. they don't have the resources themselves.

The "white upperclass male" has the resources to do harm, and don't get supported.

I keep thinking of Elliot Rodgers, who had a thought that girls owed it to him to date him. I don't think any of that was because he was white, male, or upper class. It was because he was lonely. And without proper socialisation and support he got further and further into the deep end. Males are violent but it can be channelled into positivity.

It drives home why such divisive language doesn't help the situation.

Obviously the whole "everything supports them every other day" isn't true, because of they were supported, they wouldn't be going through this mess. Or you can believe that it is due to inherent "whiteness", or "maleness", if you would like to continue to divide these kids further.

>>drekip+Oi
Many people are lonely, but only some of them shoot up little kids. Hell, I'd say most kids are bullied in some way or another at some point during their journey through school! It is important to reach out to all teens and address bullying for a multitude of reason, but the narrative of a misfit loner is just that, a narrative that most often falls apart during the investigation into the shooter's background.

Elliot Rogers did not kill young women because he was lonely. He did it because he felt entitled to do that and lacked awareness into his own contribution to his loneliness.

> Or you can believe that it is due to inherent "whiteness", or "maleness", if you would like to continue to divide these kids further.

If whiteness and maleness doesn't contribute to this issue, how come this crime has such a distinctive perp profile? As far as I know, young women in the US are not banned from going to a gun shop and getting an AR-15 as soon as they turn 18, and have equal capacity to contract mental illness. The difference is they don't feel like they are owed something that the world hasn't given to them. This is behavioral issue, not a mental health issue.

>>hellof+Rx
You have a poisonous, race and gender obsessed world view.

>>hellof+Rx
Another common thread for many of these shooters is violence or threats of violence toward women. It is sometimes discussed but doesn't get a lot of emphasis. In a society building on misogynistic ideals, it's easy to speculate on why that may be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyn...

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/05/30/wendy-murphy-texas-s...

Here's where Red Flag laws could do a lot.

>>SCUSKU+b6
Come out the other side of what? Youth or did you find yourself in the world of 4chan and red pill?

I'm not trying to troll. I'm genuinely interested in learning more, if you were having thoughts of violence that could have ended tragically.

>>hellof+e6
> there is not solid data

you sure about your claim?

> According to Lee (2013), there are two leading causes of school shootings: bullying (87%), as well as both non-compliance and side effects from psychiatric drugs (12%). Most school shooters claimed or left evidence behind indicating that they were victims of severe and long-term bullying. The majority of bullying victims experienced feelings of humiliation, which resulted in thoughts of suicide or revenge (Lee, 2013).

https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/vistas/school...

>>Markof+X7
In the cases you've mentioned, people by and large don't form their opinions based on studying historical facts in an objective way but based on what they're told, almost exclusively by their government in these cases. Certain atrocities are highlighted and emphasized repeatedly, others are overlooked or hidden, but rarely because of how bad or bloody they were. World history is basically the history of war and few people consider them all to be bad.

The only school shooters I can remember the names of are the Columbine shooters and I'd say that's mostly due to the fact they were the first in the modern school shooter era (depressing reality). Perhaps that fame helped fuel other shootings, but I can't name a single other one out of the many since then.

I'm sure the fact that we're so used to acts of violence in the US on a regular basis is a contributing factor. At this point you'd have to do something pretty horrendously bad to go down in infamy. On the other hand, if it were an act (without innocent casualties) committed against say a financial, insurance institution or some other disliked entity, they could become a folk hero.

>>igetsp+oC
I have experienced episodes of depression throughout my teenage years and now my mid-20's, but never allowed myself to believe that I was having depression because I thought I wasn't "one of them" I thought I was stronger, somehow better than everyone else. YouTube started recommending red pill videos such as edits of American Psycho, Fight Club, The Joker, basically movies of men expressing their feelings via violence.

I recently sought out a psychiatrist as well as a therapist, and have been taking medication. My psychic pain has been alleviated thanks to the medication, which has given me breathing room to work on a lot of toxic mentalities that I carried. Like that the most important thing about my life was my job or how much money I made, caring about status and prestige above all things, thinking of myself as a machine solely to milk for money, among other things like toxic masculinity.

While I never had easy access to weapons, nor do I think I would have ever committed a mass shooting, I can easily see how someone with a weaker support system than I had would be driven to retaliate against society because violence is oftentimes seen as a valid means of emotional expression for young men.

Anyways, thanks for asking :)

>>ekianj+BQ
Yes, I'm actually pretty sure. Peter Langman, a very well known expert on the matter, sees no clear connection between bullying and shooting, also points out that many shooters were bullies themselves and don't target their supposed offenders: https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/bullying_sch...

It's interesting that you quote that shooters "claimed" and "experienced feelings" of being ostracized, because many of them do indeed feel that way, like Elliot Rodgers thinking of himself as a perfect gentleman passed over by women for some incomprehensible reason despite clearly not being one. The catch is that those feelings are not always rooted in reality: many of them were well-liked and popular. What they also often turn out to be, though, is "injustice collectors" who tend to hold grudges and refuse to take responsibility for their own shortcomings (including, I assume, their own contribution to being excluded by others), according to this FBI report: https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/stats-services-publicati...

>>hellof+Rx
> This is behavioral issue, not a mental health issue

I agree completely. And you're right on the Elliot Rogers part, I'm sorry that I wasn't quite clear on that. The issue was 100% the thought of being "owed" something.

Perhaps trying to put another way: He thought he was owed something because he felt that he fit some profile of a young, handsome, gentleman, who's a son of an actor, and life doesn't follow scripts.

My point is that if we keep saying "young white males have it all" when they don't, they will start to think "well why don't I feel complete, if I have it all?" - it's a genuine question. I think the answer is that we need to stop demonising "straight white males" lest they become demons*.

I'm not saying that they don't fit the profile. I'm saying that it's not because they are white and male. Black males fit a distinctive criminal perpetrator profile as well, but it's not due to being black. You can't have one without the other. Either you believe this is due to their race or not.

* I just recently had a newborn daughter, and my mother-in-law said something along these lines: whatever I call her: "princess", "monster", etc. is what she will become.

I think it's the same thing here: the more we demonise and stigmatise "straight white males" the more there's going to be a lash back from young males who don't feel like they have the power you claim they have, yet.

>>Comrad+18
Please ELI5: what did the Nazi regime actually do? What is it about Hitler that warrants universal admiration?

>>ekianj+BQ
There was a Reddit thread in recent weeks about a related topic and there were a decent number of bullied males talking about how much they thought about shooting up their school. IMO, it's very possible that it's an intersection of bullied + having the means + propensity (for the most part, aggressive/aggrieved males).

>>drekip+qH2
Let me rephrase my thought: shooters do what they do not because they are white and male, because there are plenty white males who don't do it. But we can't deny there is something happening within that demographic that makes it more prone to commit this particular crime.

> My point is that if we keep saying "young white males have it all" when they don't, they will start to think "well why don't I feel complete, if I have it all?"

Not to discount this, but teenage angst has been around for generations. How come young men today decide to shoot their classmates instead of, idk, writing bad poetry or standing under the window of a girl that rejected them, the way their fathers did? I think the main deciding factor is being exposed to a certain brand of toxic masculinity that promotes misogyny and equates violence with power. One of the strongest red flags for mass shooters, leaving depression, bullying, etc etc far behind, is a history of misogynistic behavior and domestic violence.

You can disagree with my interpretation, of course.

>>hellof+jG3
>Not to discount this, but teenage angst has been around for generations. How come young men today decide to shoot their classmates instead of, idk, writing bad poetry or standing under the window of a girl that rejected them, the way their fathers did?

>I think the main deciding factor is being exposed to a certain brand of toxic masculinity that promotes misogyny and equates violence with power. One of the strongest red flags for mass shooters, leaving depression, bullying, etc etc far behind, is a history of misogynistic behavior and domestic violence.

The forefathers either had enough hope, restraint, or we have simply forgotten of all the times they took emotional decisions. I can't think of anything personally besides some old fiction[0] that would back up the 3rd possibility. The second possibility seems backwards to me, if anything it should be the opposite, modern men would be less inclined to violence towards women, if not, then what benefit did 200+ years of womens activism do? And the first I have no perspective on, but consider the very real chance that young men today unlike their forefathers see no way out (Even if this perspective is only an illusion, it remains very real in their minds), which the original blogpost tries to address by telling them there is a light at the end of the tunnel and offers activities they can do right now.

For the record, most of the people against "toxic masculinity" would classify the standing under the window of the girl that rejected you to be stalking, and an extension of that toxic behavior.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sorrows_of_Young_Werther#C...

>>hellof+jG3
I largely agree with what you're saying. There is something about this demographic and it's getting largely worse, not better. I think most of this is enough feedback that we need to tailor our approach (as in almost put it in 180 from what we have been doing).

The issue with "toxic masculinity" is that only non-toxic men can define it. and everyone has different definitions of what a non-toxic man is.

If i were to suggest what an "ideal role model" is for young men, it would be someone who doesn't drink, who is physically strong, boxes, labours, is capable of causing harm, but chooses not to, and one who isn't prone to loosing it if a girl rejects him.

Others would read my description and recoil in disgust, because they think the ideal man should be one who is romantic and perhaps a writer, and should drop their coat so ladies can walk over puddles, and be well versed in different types of whiskeys, who is incapable of causing harm, but perhaps wants to.

These are really the two ends of what young men have to try and model themselves as, and they do a botched job of it and get called a creep and loser for being a creepy loser. drinking to excess because that's the only socially acceptable thing to do when in large groups.

Perhaps the one thing that we need to train boys in is how to handle rejection properly, maybe that's the missing piece here.

Perhaps society should not encourage the archetype of "incapable of causing harm but wants to" and instead encourage "is able to cause harm, but won't" - like their forefathers were into adventure and war stories of strong heroes, etc.

(these are just thoughts at this point, going from what I know of being a man myself, and what I had to do to grow up.)

Who's to say. Good chat none-the-less. :)

>>showde+G44
> For the record, most of the people against "toxic masculinity" would classify the standing under the window of the girl that rejected you to be stalking, and an extension of that toxic behavior.

Yes, but that is not my point. What I am trying to say that when those young men face hardships, instead of internalizing their response or directing it towards the object of their desire, they somehow decide that the solution to their problem is murdering a bunch of elementary school children. They see themselves as the wronged party against the world, and the way to rectify that injustice is to commit an act of violence against someone who has nothing to do with their troubles.