The 27-year-old man who police say shot and killed a California business owner over a Pride flag draped in her store appears to have had a yearslong history of posting disturbing — and often violent — anti-LGBTQ messages on social media.
The suspect, Travis Ikeguchi, gunned down Laura Ann Carleton, 66, on Friday, after confronting her and “yelling many homophobic slurs” over her clothing store’s Pride flag, San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus said at a news conference Monday. Shortly after fleeing the store, Mag.Pi, Ikeguchi was killed in a shootout with law enforcement.
This just in: shitty person has a history of being shitty, more news at 11
Funny how obsessed he was with guys sucking each others dicks. Repressing something?
Seems like stochastic terrorism again.
Also a little surprised the police shot him instead of making nice. On the one hand I’m not sad the violent bigot is dead. On the other summary execution by the police is fucked up.
You mean the results of stochastic terrorism? Because what he did was just plain terrorism.
Yes, you are correct.
Summary execution? It’s a gunfight, he was shooting at the police using his gun.
Is there a better phrase for “he was killed without a trial” than “summary execution”?
Yes, killed in a gunfight. Execution by definition means that the person has already been subdued.
If he had been shooting at BLM protesters he would have been given a medal.
Thanks for this very related comment
Holy shit 200 some comments and everyone just fed a stupid troll.
Right wingers are here forum sliding and everyone’s falling for it
lol yup. That was a sad read through.
I blocked the troll and like 90% of the comment section disappeared. That’s how much damage that shitbag did by getting people to respond to contrarian trash.
What’s really weird is why the fuck isn’t the mod doing anything?
Good question.
27 years old. Barely not a fucking stupid kid. I wish you could see how much pain you caused. I wish you could’ve let it go. What did you think you’d accomplish, I don’t care because it hurts to think about what you could’ve accomplished of you lived your life with peace rather than anger.
Quit making a martyr out of this loser and wannabe terrorist. He deserves to die in obscurity, not have his story told as part of the victim’s own tale.
Ya don’t say….
This is a feature, not a bug, of the right. If you’re not a part of their cult, THEY. WANT. YOU. DEAD.
What’s GAB like nowadays anywayd
deleted by creator
Long history of UNTREATED MENTAL ILLNESS.
Bigotry is not a mental illness, and actually mentally ill people are much more likely to be the victims of violence than to perpetrate it.
Please stop spreading this ableist excuse.
This guy killed someone because he was a violent hateful bigot, and is direct and not at all unexpected result of a violent hateful and bigoted society. That might not be an easy or comfortable reality to deal with, but that’s what it is. Stop scapegoating mentally ill people (who yes, deserve significantly more help and support than we get, but that doesn’t change the fact that society created this, and many other, killers, not mental illness).No one is scapegoating mentally ill people by stating the fact that there is mental illness that can lead to dangerous and / or criminal behaviour. An estimated 30 to 70 % of all homicidal criminals have at least one mental illness.
It’s also not ableist because “mentally ill people” is not even close to a homogeneous group of people. There are thousands of different mental illnesses and more than 20 % of people in the USA are mentally ill.
No one is saying these people are all murderers.
Please stop trying to push this weird agenda of “some people are just born evil” or made evil or whatever it is you are trying to say. It’s a step forward to recognise how society can prevent criminal behaviour, for example by treating mental illness better. “Evil” does not exist. There is always a reason of why someone behaves the way they do.
"…political conservatism and motivated social cognition (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski & Sulloway, “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin). In a nutshell, the article—by Stanford and UC Berkeley researchers—seems to suggest that conservatism is a mild form of insanity. Here are the facts. A meta-analysis culled from 88 samples in 12 countries, and with an N of 22,818, revealed that “several psychological variables predicted political conservatism.” Which variables exactly? In order of predictive power: death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem. The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.” The above list of variables is more than a little unsavory. We are talking about someone full of fear, with a poor sense of self, and a lack of mental dexterity. " -above is an excerpt from Psychology today article
No, these people literally need medical intervention and they’d very likely be better, more compassionate, healthier people.
Mental illness is chemical imbalance, inherited conditions and unresolved trauma. Science has answers and therapies, but this group is socially conditioned to avoid addressing their metal health and our society fails (largely in a broken loop full of the same conservatives denying funding) in not making access to care undeniably available, affordable/free and encouraged.
Honest question - where do we draw the line between mental illness and reactionary/far right politics? Noone of sound mind would believe the ludicrous conspiracism that the mainstream conservative media like Fox constantly spews forth - and that’s to say nothing of the more extreme OAN and Infowars.
Case in point - gay and trans people are inherently paedophiles (honestly wtf?)… A super-common talking point that begs the question what do we do about the people (the lunatics stupidly think are) raping our children?
We’ve reached the point in the medicalisation of everything where being an asshole must be a mental health problem because ‘no sane person would think that’. Being irrational and believing lies is not mental illness, it is normal human behaviour. Cruelty is normal human behaviour.
Unless this can be proven, it’s a bold claim to say it’s normal human behaviour to be cruel. Current research suggests the opposite. The majority of humans are born with empathy and the desire to help others and be nice.
I like to consider myself a kind person but ive been cruel before.
Of course they’re assholes, but that’s not the point - they’re brain-broken delusional, and victims of genuinely unhinged conspiracism. They’re not mutually exclusive.
Believing the transparent, self-contradictory nonsense is absolutely pathological… I assume you think someone that believes they’re Queen Victoria are delusional - where do you draw the line?
I think the courts use the criteria that if they knew what they were doing would get them in trouble. Running away, hiding evidence, obscuring identity.
Having beliefs that don’t match the real world isn’t mental illness in of itself.
I’m curious why you jumped to the legal argument. If someone is unaware of the consequences of their actions, it becomes difficult to hold them legally or morally accountable. This is also the basis for an insanity defence.
While having beliefs that don’t match the real world isn’t inherently mental illness - it definitely is beyond a certain point. The clinical definition can be found in DSM5 297.1 (F22).
It’s the difference between “I believe Jesus is my personal lord and saviour” (delusional but understandable) and “I am Jesus… No I can’t swim, but watch me step off this boat and walk on water.” (delusional to a clinically relevant, harmful degree).
There’s no such thing as homophobia, I wish people would stop saying that. 🤦🏻♂️
For me, the bigger issue is how this person got a gun in the first place.
That is literally one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.
There is absolutely homophobia. There are people who very specifically go out of their way to harass primarily LGBTQ individuals. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US experienced this even in school as a child.
No, it’s called bigotry.
If I see a queer person, I don’t go running for the hills, nor do they make me feel irrationally uncomfortable or fearful.
Absolutely. This is the same reason I am against the use of sunrise and sunset. The sun isn’t actually doing anything!
Peanuts are not actually nuts, we must fix this as well.
I heard someone say they were head over heels in love with their boyfriend the other day, imagine my outrage that they were standing normal on their feet!
We should also get rid of the word hemophobia, they’re not actually afraid of blood, they’re just having a neurological reaction.
It is just all so infuriating
Oh, and don’t even get me started on “sleeping like a baby”! I’ve never seen a baby sleep through the night without waking up multiple times.
Or when people claim they’re “freezing” when it’s just a bit chilly. To my knowledge, they’re not turning into ice!
Ever heard someone say they’re “starving”? Unless they’ve been stranded on a deserted island recently, I doubt it.
And the term “caught red-handed”? Unless their hands are actually painted red, I think we might be exaggerating.
It’s all so perplexing; words just aren’t what they used to be!
🏅
Words matter….
Absolutely, words do matter! That’s precisely my point. If we’re to take every word and phrase at its literal, original meaning, we’d have quite the linguistic overhaul on our hands. It’d be a monumental task (and not literally involving monuments). But let’s remember, language is dynamic and ever-evolving. It’s as much about communication and shared understanding as it is about individual words. Let’s focus on the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the weeds—or should I say, not literally stuck in marshy grounds!
I’m glad you agree.
Are you trying to change the definition of agree?
You don’t
I get what you’re trying to say: “It’s not fear, it’s hate” but we call that hate homophobia and everyone agrees on the meaning.
Phobia doesn’t only mean fear. Things that are hydrophobic aren’t scared of water
Exactly. And since we already have words for that, I don’t understand why people have to make up new terminology. If the article called him a bigot, I would still know what the shooting was about.
“Homophobia” has been the accepted and predominant term for anti-gay bigotry for as long as I can remember; no one’s making up new terminology here.
And the word phobia has meant aversion or hatred since at least the 1800s
https://archive.org/details/gentlemansmagaz206unkngoog/page/786/mode/2up
Dude is so obsessed with the meaning of words he couldn’t even do basic research
If that makes you feel better. 🤦🏻♂️
As I said in another comment, Native American has been the terminology for quite some time as well, regardless of the fact that it’s wrong.
My point, so you don’t think I’m trying a straw man argument, just because something is used for a long time, by the majority of people, doesn’t make it inherently correct.
I don’t understand why people have to make up new terminology
I used google trends to show you they’re not; the term has been in common use for literally decades.
Further, you’ve been stating repeatedly in this thread that “homophobia” is incorrect semantically because it’s not a literal fear of gay people. But the literal dictionary definition of “phobia” proves you wrong on this.
Repeating the same alternative facts over and over in this thread doesn’t make them true.
So has the term “Native American “, and that’s no more correct than the word “homophobia “. 🤷🏻♂️
Except “phobia” doesn’t solely mean “irrational fear”. As @[email protected] pointed out, “hydrophilia” and “hydrophobia” do not refer to chemicals that are literally in love with or afraid of water.
What us the definition of “hydrophobia” as it relates to chemistry?
I’ll wait for you to explain how some molecules are leterally afraid of water.
What does that have to do with homophobia?
The same point comes across if you call them a bigot instead of attaching new definitions to a word so that it fits the description of someone who is prejudiced.
Bigotry is the overall term, homophobia is a subset of bigotry. You are the one attempting to redefine language in ways noone but yourself agrees with.
Crash, give it a rest.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Semantics wars are stupid and detract from the conversation.
They’re the ones getting hung up on that part of my comment and conveniently overlooking the second part. Not surprising.
Alright, I’ll bite
Why is it suspicious how he acquired a gun in the United States?
It’s not suspicious, I t’s more about the lack of enforcement in regards to how easy it is to get purchase a gun legally.
It’s actually harder to get a driver’s license than something specifically made to kill, and that’s a big problem.
The issue is, if the government tries to implement protocols, then they start crying about infringing on their right, as if it’s the only amendment that can’t be, wait for it….amended.
Regardless of what kind of weapon you want, you should have to take a psychological evaluation beforehand. And depending on what type of firearm you purchase, you should be required to have a certain amount of hours for gun safety as well, for that specific type of firearm, i.e. handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.
Is a hydrophobic material afraid of water? Or does it simply repel water?
Similarly a homophobic person repels homosexuals from society via shame, discrimination, or violence.
Lol honestly this is probably the best response here. No wonder you didn’t get a reply
There are many kinds of bigotry, one of them is homophobia.
You think that you’re saying something clever, but you’re not. The suffixes “philic” and “phobic” are used in scientific contexts to denote when things are attracted or repelled. Yes, colloquially people use “phobic” to mean fear, but it doesn’t always mean that in science. For example, when scientists talk about https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Atomic_and_Molecular_Properties/Intermolecular_Forces/Hydrophobic_Interactions they aren’t saying that the molecules are literally “afraid” of water. They aren’t wrong in their language. You are. Homophobic people are repelled by gay people, and so “homophobia” is exactly the correct term.
And, in addition to that, I gather from your replies that you are a straight person. If you consider yourself an ally, or just not a shitty person, then please refrain from reducing a homophobic murder to a semantic game. It’s real life for gay people, not a thought experiment for you to exercise your contrarian rhetorical skills. You are not helping.
Editing to add: And, of course, people DO claim fear of gay people as a defense for murdering gay people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
“A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.”
So, even if you’re junvenile semantic games were valid (they aren’t), you’re wrong. So, again, please take a seat.
Also I’d argue that none of this really matters because language doesn’t follow an absolute set of rules. Language is how people use it. If people start using a word to mean so thing it take son that meaning, it doesn’t matter if the word makes sense in relation to other words.
A word for something isn’t a 100% accurate description of that thing and it never has been. It doesn’t matter that a peanut isn’t technically a nut, we call it a peanut. Everyone understands that it’s a peanut. If you walk up to someone on the street and say “do you know where I can buy some peanuts” they will understand what you are saying with no problems at all.
We spend way too much time arguing over the “right” and “wrong” uses of words. There is no such thing really. Words don’t determine their own meaning, people determine that meaning, and if enough people can regocnize a words meaning immediately when they hear it then it is a word with a valid definition. It doesn’t matter if the word is contradictory to the way other similar words work, because language isn’t defined like that.
Ironically this whole stupid “homophobic peoe aren’t scared of gay people” actually proves that the person making that claim does acknoedge that the word homophobia is linguistically valid, because they are acknowledging that it’s understood definition differs from what you would expect if you strictly read the word literally
Further, even their efforts to portray it as “silly SJWs constantly inventing new terms for things” falls flat on its face because “homophobia” has been a widely used and accepted term for literally decades. It’s a pointless (and incorrect!) diversion in pedantry. Plus, it ignores the fact that there is value in actually having specific terms for common things, actually. The reason we have a specific term for anti-gay bigotry is because it’s a concept we as a society talk a lot about, so it’s simply useful to have a specific term we can use to specifically address that phenomenon. No single person gets to play pedantic petulant child and dictate how the rest of us use language. Language is perhaps the single most democratic thing humanity has, as the meaning of words (and what words there are!) is solely determined by everyday participatory democracy.
And language changes with time and culture. A great example of this is the word ‘literally’. At this point it’s become a synonym of ‘figuratively’ with younger generations, just about the exact opposite of what it once meant. Some might argue that’s just using the word wrong, but if people are able to understand each other when using the word in that way, it’s clearly a working definition, no matter how odd.
So even if homophobia meant actually being afraid of gay people at some point, even that would be irrelevant. At the end of the day, the meaning it holds today is the only thing that’s important.
LMFAO, why would I feel the need to be clever when conversing with strangers on the internet?
Maybe therapy could help you answer that question.
You got it. I’ll make an appointment tomorrow. 🤣
It’s easier to understand homophobia not from the perspective of being afraid of gay people but being afraid of what would happen to society if being gay were not considered a failure state lesser to being hetero and treated as such.
Hence why they keep talking about “cultural Marxism”. It’s supposed to seem like a threat posed to “Western Civilization” they are VERY afraid of what happens when being gay is considered normal. “Cultural Marxism” actually doesn’t have any clear definable meaning aside from a vague implication that any form of socially accepted equality is dangerous to society, and cause for dissolution of the “traditional family” and so on. They absolutely DO frame these subjects in the context of fear. That’s why they keep evoking communist wording ( the Nazis used the term “Cultural Bolshevism” for the same purpose) You are already conditioned to be afraid of Communists so you are supposed to draw an emotional parallel. There really is no other purpose for using that term as while Marx himself did have some vague stuff about women’s role in society and that they were equally human as men but his works really were more gender blind and focused on how capitalism effects people’s lives. Calling him feminist is a bit of a stretch. But the point is to make you scared so you really stop thinking about it in any terms other than “Very bad society destroying thingy”.
If they said “Gay people will kill you because they are all great at jujitsu and you should run!” people would think you’re a complete moron but “Their existence will erode the nuclear family and cause us to be weak as a society so that our enemies will take us down!” is a more nebulous fear that doesn’t stem from any specific completely harmless individual. It makes the existence of them at all as a whole a threat. Or they cam be treated as a threat to one’s personal perception of being masculine if ones entire premise of masculinity operates on the nessesity of being perceived as not being desired or desiring men. Hence homophobia - a fear of being perceived as gay.
You’re a special flavor of stupid…
Is everyone else seeing them here as DadeMurphy, but when you look at thier profile it says ZeroCool?
What’s up with that?Not for me. I went to block them and it was still DadeMurphy
Looking at this post with just a browser and it doesn’t even say DadeMurphy at all. He must have tried changing his name somehow.
It’s just the difference between your actual username and your display name
Ah gotcha, thanks. Haven’t come across that yet.
He blocked me, how cute. LMAO
deleted by creator
All you have to contribute to this intellectual conversation is why I have two different names? LMAO
Don’t you have numbers to post? 🤣
Yawn…
Ah yes, “fear”, the notorious antonym for “attraction.”
Phobia is the opposite of philia; they’re Greek suffixes, and they meant, and still mean, “fleeing from” and “seeking out”; the connotation of “fear” arrived considerably more recently, because of psychiatric conditions being named … in Greek.
If you’re going to a pedantic dummy about etymology, at least take the time to learn a little before you dive in my dude.
For instance, you could object that “homophobia” originally referred to someone who irrationally avoided other humans, and then demand that words never change their meaning and immediately begin proudly speaking fluent proto Indo European.
Thank you for proving my point.
Taking the troll account out for a spin I see.
I don’t think I’ve seen a post with this many down votes on Lemmy yet
Removed by mod
Yawn.
Removed by mod
You first.
