European old money is doing just fine. It's the middle class taxed to death on every additional 10 bucks yes still not rich enough for "tax optimization" that is being fucked over.
Yeah, the rebuttal to "you never admit that you are wrong" is "here's a bunch of situations where I admitted I was wrong", not "I actually was just never wrong in the first place".
> 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
There is no need to discuss this “absent any other context”, since the context is provided. I do not think you’re engaging with this material in good faith.
If your social anxiety or trauma prevents you from interacting with men and women in an equitable way, then it's absolutely fair for your interviewer to reflect on how it impacts the workplace and proceed accordingly. "Treat men and women equally" is a perfectly valid professional expectation.