News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I'll never understand a man's reasoning for doing that. How can one be an arbiter over the lives of your partner and kids...
I remembering seeing something similar happen in my state, father had lost their job and murdered their whole immediate family to prevent them from becoming homeless.
Nuts, but there are a lot of homeless around here and it does not get easy to pull yourself or your family out of that.
While Lemmy loves their memes and jokes about the government and the economy, this is what real world stress results in. I'm sure they will find a rich online life for this guy and recent financial trouble.
For every 1% increase in unemployment, 40,000 people die in a country with no social net. That's what a shit hole is.
i love the big short too but i’m not sure that number is accurate https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39267/do-40-000-people-die-in-the-united-states-for-every-1-increase-in-unemployment
Ironically I just went through a deep dive about this guy reading multiple news sources and they all say he recently lost his job as a vp for the sales department of the American heart association.
So yeah. Dude was stressing and I get it but, fuck. So much unnecessary death just because people willingly vote against their own self interests.
In many if not most cases of family annihilation, it's a loss or perceived loss of social or financial status. Dad or Mom or whoever can't stand the idea of their kids growing up poor (or even just slightly less rich) and decide to not only take themselves, but everyone with them "to spare them the pain".
"reasoning" is not going to be the right word for whatever was going on in this guy's head.
That seems like a dangerous way of thinking. You can't ever hope to stop something if you refuse to understand it.
Eh, you can still analyse it, but it's the kind of analysis a clinical psychologist might do.
It's a disturbingly prevalent mindset really. The idea that the patriarch, the pater familias, literally owns the family. That his wife and children are possessions to do with as he pleases. In ancient Rome it was litteral. He could kill them if he wished. Not even unique to Rome. Its still around today. A sick aspect of conservative ideology that persists and infects society the world over.
Its the sickening undercurrent to conservative "parents rights" arguments.
And I'll never understand a grandmother's reason for doing this
90% of family annihilators are male.
Can't we just agree that all family annihilation is bad?
I'm not trying to derail the conversation. My initial post was directly relevant to the post it responded to, which was also building out from the original topic. That's how conversations work.
You may not like where all conversations go, but you really must stop trying to be internet-policeman when other people are talking.
That's not at all what I said, or implied. You seem quick to jump to that conclusion, but no. (I'm wondering how you even think that that reading makes sense in context)
It would be great if you'd respond to what people actually say.
Not only that, but nobody ever "asked why men do this" either like they're claiming. This person is clearly trying to push the conversation into something else entirely
You're not going to win with her. She's always all over posts with her "men bad" mentality. I thought I'd blocked her because I was sick of her whining and hate, but nope. I will be in a few moments, though!
We're literally on a post about a man killing his entire family.
Why did you respond this way? I'm sincerely asking for the record.
For the record? Anyway...
Firstly, I saw several pieces of news coverage on the grandmother case before all of the details came out, and in the end the story was more grim than I had anticipated. Early in the coverage, I had assumed that one of the two parents of the children was responsible. Soon, it became clear that the father was not involved, which left only the mother, grandmother, or possibly one of the children. I admit that I did not want to consider it possible that it would be the grandmother, and was horrified to find out that it was. I could not, and cannot, conceive of anyone killing her child and the children of her child. I do not know what circumstances drove her to do this, but my thoughts of course went to mental illness, dementia, substance abuse etc.
Then, today I see the post you've quoted above and the first sentence - what a weird way of phrasing this. I mean, wouldn't you have a hard time understanding anyone's reasoning? The sentence seemed so "needlessly gendered". Unless the poster finds such murders committed by women reasonable, or thinks that women don't commit such murders, or finds the motives of men especially baffling, then what is the point of phrasing it in this way?
I'd hoped that my post would nudge the original poster into explaining, but "somehow" that conversation was derailed and I haven't gotten a reply.
All of these cases are sad, and I saw no discussion at all on the grandmother case. From your comments, you seem to prefer to look at tragedies like these through a gender lens. I just don't.
Ok, is there a point you’re making aside from “men are bad”
Was there a point toast was making beside whataboutism?
This case is a man killing his family and himself. Most family annihilators are male. That's facts.
Wow, neat fact.
Yeah, it is. We need to be able to be honest about these kinds of stats in order to reduce them.
Ok—men are bad! Now what?
There’s some good conversation about motives and such elsewhere in this very thread. You might learn something :)
There really isn’t much to learn from misandry
Is it misandrist to correctly point out statistics about family annihilators?
Can you provide sources that prove its a crime committed by a larger group than men?
Is it being "honest about these kinds of stats" when you very specifically attack someone mentioning a part of these stats? You call it "whataboutism" and claim they're "derailing the conversation" all while you completely derail the discussion with your own whataboutism and act like some innocent victim. It's incredibly toxic.
I did read them, and there’s just a lot of you echoing men are bad.
Look deeper than gender finger pointing at what conditions of our society led to this outcome. Why do we live such isolated lives from our communities that allow these situation to occur?
No, I'm echoing that family annihilators are overwhelmingly male.
I'm very open to talking about WHY men are the ones to commit family annihilations at much higher rates than anyone else. And there's some good convo happening about that in this very thread as well.
✨**patriarchy**✨
These people see family as property, not individuals with their own agency.