Mass Shooter or American Duelist?

[BjornP]

I’ll concede “duelist” does not quit work here by definition. The search for satisfaction, even at the cost of sacrificing one’s life is the same.

Just considering the great Stanley Kubrick movie Barry Lyndon. I have not done enough a reading to know if individuals like that even existed but the idea that anyone could be called to the mat over the smallest of insults seemed to result in a quite civil society.

Not even remotely the same.

Again, kybh. Let's say a guy named Muhammed just murdered your family. Who is responsible for the death of your family? The actual, specific, individual person who carried out the actual, specific, individual act against your family named Muhammed OR any dude who shares the same skin color/ethnicity/gender/clothing style/etc.?

I am more than average "morally tolerant" of violence as a means of righting wrongs, including killing other people. But the absolute least you have to have when wanting to do violence against someone is proof that THAT SPECIFIC PERSON, actually wronged someone to the point that it warrants a violent response. If you throw a grenade into a building full of people, or start gunning down a group of people for things you only IMAGINE they've done, or worse, because you're imagining they symbolize (like you're some fucking SJW post-modernist self-fellater) the wrongs made against you/your victim group, then you're not using violence responsibly.

As for Barry Lyndon, that was a civil society for the aristocracy. Whether or not you had any honor depended on your fixed social position in life. But I think what you wanted to say, is that when there was a physical consequence to disrespect, people respected each other? That's what you meant, right? If so, I agree with that. But not if you want to collectivize the punishment, or punish "systemic" wrongs or some other abstract shit like that, by mass murdering random people. The insult that led to duels back in the day was a from gentleman to gentleman type deal.

If you seek to right wrongs that can NOT be specifically/individually/personally blamed on specific, individual persons... then you have no justification for use of violence against anyone. Unless every single bullet hits someone who you've individually determined to be guilty by reviewing their life in relation to the wrong you think they committed, then you have no right to shoot anyone.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Bjorn is really fucking up the race war buzz right now.

[kybkh]

Fuck You guys, I knew I was on the right track...

The practice was also thought to increase civility throughout society. To avoid being challenged to the duel, gentlemen were careful not to insult or slight others. The courtly, formal manners this time period is famous for-the stately dress, the bowing, toasting, and flowery language-were designed to convey honorable intentions and avoid giving offense. Jealousies and resentments had to be repressed and covered with politeness.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles ... -the-duel/

[Speaker to Animals]

Abraham Lincoln exposed it for a farce, though. There was no going back after the broadsword duel.

[BjornP]

Fuck You guys, I knew I was on the right track...

The practice was also thought to increase civility throughout society. To avoid being challenged to the duel, gentlemen were careful not to insult or slight others. The courtly, formal manners this time period is famous for-the stately dress, the bowing, toasting, and flowery language-were designed to convey honorable intentions and avoid giving offense. Jealousies and resentments had to be repressed and covered with politeness.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles ... -the-duel/

Again, not disputing that part, nor do I think it wrong to respect some of those old honor culture values. The problem is that you think that the old honor cultures are what mass shooters today generally are doing. A duel was meant to settle disputes. A dispute between two individuals. Offense could be given by an individual. If you gun down, say, random Catholics in Catholic Church because this Catholic co-worker humiliates you at a daily basis, then you're not "dueling" those church-goers, you're not righting any wrong committed against you. Because if you kill or hurt those did NOT wrong you, you'll be the one acting dishonorably. Because you challenge that Catholic co-worker to a fight, then that's honorable. In short, you don't, and can't, right the wrongs against you by killing people who did NOT wrong you.

You're mistaking feeling humiliated with losing honor, I think. Those mass shooters generally feel humiliated, and take their humiliation out on either complete random people, or people they imagine "put them down", not anyone who actually did. They collectivize the guilt, they collectivize the responsibility for their feelings of humiliation. It's like a loser husband who resents his more succesful wife and beats her up for it to feel better. While he's also using violence to right his feelings of humiliation and lost honor, his wife did not seek to slight him and society at large would not consider his use of violence as a justifiable use in an honor culture. In other words, you can't just use violence against anyone you feel slight you in some, abstract, "systemic", or symbolic way and if society at large don't recognize your own percieved slight as a real one, your use of violence would not be considered justified.

So again, NOT saying that you're wrong to respect the principles of those honor culture days of 18th/19th century Western culture, but you are wrong to think that mass shooters generally fall into that same category, that their way of settling percieved wrongs to them are the equivalent of 19th cent duelers settling disputes between them.

[Hastur]

Here is some footage from the last sword (epee) duel in France in 1967. It was between the mayor of Marseille, Gaston Defferre and the Gaullist René Ribière. They had had an argument during a debate and decided to settle it in a gentlemanly fashion. Dueling is still not illegal in France b.t.w.

[Speaker to Animals]

Of course, I wasted my time watching that French "duel". Apparently, in France nobody dies in a duel because both men surrender.

[Montegriffo]

So now, along with a hi viz jacket, full set of spare bulbs, a warning triangle and a first aid kit, I've got to carry a couple of French foil ( I never liked epee) in case some swarthy Frenchman dishonours me.

Fucking EU...

[Hastur]

Of course, I wasted my time watching that French "duel". Apparently, in France nobody dies in a duel because both men surrender.

It was to first blood. René Ribière was wounded twice and Defferre was declared a winner. Ribière was getting married the day after so Defferre made sure to wound him in a way that wouldn't spoil the wedding.