Harris still poses threat to DOOM community

insertwackynamehere said:

People idolize one thing and shun its twin. It makes no fucking sense.

Probably because you're comparing and contrasting peoples interest in certain fictitious movies and a tv series about a gang that no longer exists to their distain with real life violence of gangs that do exist.

This really has nothing at all to do with this thread.

there still is a mob its just weaker thank goodness.

and also reading through Harris' stuff is scary cause like, I draw a lot of Doomguy and map outline doodles and even have some of the same views like on people who annoy me, but I mean I'd never go on a killing spree and hate to think I have anything in common with him. bleh. I guess theres a lot of outcast type people and only some make the stupid decision to become sickos.

I don't think this poses a threat really. The worst that could happen is it could become fodder for Dr. Phil to preach about. I really feel like his popularity is waning though so nothing to worry about.

I had a look through some of my old diaries, and theres some sick stuff in there. Then again only last week i drew an old man getting shot in the head because he said relationships with an 18-year age gap are wrong. My old "Homework Diary" from school has loads of bomb plans, death threats and pages with diagrams with titles like "How to blow up the police station",and most of this stuff would have been drawn in late 1999/early 2000 too. Thank fuck i had a form teacher who never ever looked at our homework diaries. (They where supposed to sign them every week to 'confirm' we had done our homework, but this bloke didnt give a fuck, as long as we where in the room and not bellowing swear words at the top of our lungs, beating each other up or setting the tables on fire he didnt care. He didnt even call the register out, just looked around to see who was in the room)

deathbringer said:

I had a look through some of my old diaries, and theres some sick stuff in there.

If they could somehow scan the darkest corner of everyone's mind, I doubt there would be many people whom they wouldn't want to lock up as a potential menace to society. Hmm, I just took a look in one of my old school jotters, and anyone looking at it would have thought it was the work of an alien. Page after page of completely indechiperable code (e.g. the detailed grammar of a new language), stuff suggestive of an obsessive personality, and random crazy nonsense. One page is devoted to a rotor for what someone else's bag should be called on particular days, for instance. And of course the story of life, featuring as its main characters an Adidas hold-all and the digits 2, 3 and 4. But nothing hate-filled, and it's all intermingled with quite normal stuff and bits of chess analysis, etc.

deathbringer said:

... this bloke didnt give a fuck, as long as we where in the room and not bellowing swear words at the top of our lungs, beating each other up or setting the tables on fire he didnt care.

heh. That helps explain why they're having problems recruiting teachers. That also reminds me of a complete whackjob pyromaniac I knew at university. He'd just set stuff on fire in his room (including a notepad that he had placed directly on the carpet, and coffee granules that he was determined to set alight one way or another) and kept trying to get a burning paper aeroplane to reach the other side of the River Cam (which his room overlooked). He's probably doing a highly responsible job nowadays, and capable of doing immense damage if the fancy took him...

HWGuy said:

I can't believe that this guy actually wrote an essay on guns in school.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0707061columbine1.html

Yeah, I can't believe it either.
If he typed up 5 pages explaining why kids shouldn't bring guns to school, and he didn't include any arguments against it in his writing...then why the HELL did he bring a gun himself?

It's like he just wanted to earn one last B+ before saying goodbye to the whole world. So he just wrote whatever bullshit he could, without expressing his real feelings.

I personally hate writing those types of essays which don't express any of my REAL feelings, reflections and intentions about a particular topic.
If it doesn't reflect my real thoughts then it just seems so pointless.

DarkJedi188 said:

Yeah, I can't believe it either.
If he typed up 5 pages explaining why kids shouldn't bring guns to school, and he didn't include any arguments against it in his writing...then why the HELL did he bring a gun himself?

Oh, come on. You guys aren't that dense, are you? He most likley wrote that paper as he did because he knew that his teachers would like it better than, oh, his real feelings on the matter. Also, I'm fairly anti-gun control, however, there are no arguments against NOT bringing guns in school. How could there be?

Eric Harris wasn't some lonley outcast geek that was teased and "pushed over the edge". He was a megalomaniacal sociopath that planned the attack a year in advance and went out of his way to stockpile guns, ammo and explosives. And of course making numerous videos showing all of it off and stating his intentions.

Yeah. The view of this guy as some kind of victim before he made his own victims has been totally discredited, and this is actually good for those of us who were the victims of such things. Nobody needs to be associated unfairly with a psychopath.

If you go and look at the records, you'll see that people who have been abused are much more likely to kill themselves than they are to ever kill anyone else. They have deflated self-worth, not a God complex like Harris had.

It's simply impossible to have an ego more further removed from reality than his was, especially in relation to DOOM stuff. He considered himself a DOOM god, and yet we remember him for nothing more than 2 rather crappy maps. He never had any interaction with the DOOM community, and if he had, he probably would have hated us as much as he did his school classmates, since we would have refused to recognize his imaginary greatness.

Quasar said:

He never had any interaction with the DOOM community, and if he had, he probably would have hated us as much as he did his school classmates, since we would have refused to recognize his imaginary greatness.

Well said. That sentence very nicely sums up the Harris/Doom connection.

that reminds me, does anyone here remember interacting with harris way back in the old days of the community? like was he a regular on old doom bbses and messageboards?

insertwackynamehere said:

that reminds me, does anyone here remember interacting with harris way back in the old days of the community? like was he a regular on old doom bbses and messageboards?

By all accounts he was never actually on any.

For as much as we know anyway. He could have been a faceless ass kisser that hates the ones he looks to on his off time. Considering he knew a thing or two about modding and map making I’m sure he had resources to the community.

DarkJedi188 said:
I personally hate writing those types of essays which don't express any of my REAL feelings, reflections and intentions about a particular topic.
If it doesn't reflect my real thoughts then it just seems so pointless.

Well, I thank the gods some people didn't mind publishing all their poinless thoughts or we wouldn't have philosophy and literature. To quote an intelligent author: I talk about the gods, I am an atheist. But I am an artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I say. I am telling the truth.

As far as the essay goes, it may well have been something someone encouraged him to write after being caught in school with some sort of weapon. Or perhaps it tells us that he wished that no one should have a weapon in school, except himself.

HobbsTiger1 said:
By all accounts he was never actually on any.

According to the notes he was in the land of lamers, AOL.

Scabbed Angel said:

I always had a suspicion that id took their orders from dead murderers...

They break out the Ouija Board when the ideas run dry. Everyone knows Charles Manson helped design the original.

I always laugh when this issue of banning computer games is brought up.

Conservative American's who want to put an end to murder, would rather ban a musical artist, or a video game, rather than just banning guns.

And then when someone does become a murderer, they want to fry them. If anyone is adding to America's seemingly violent culture, it is the supporters of gun ownership, the death penalty, war etc, etc... and the people who generally support such things are conservatives. The irony.

KennyJC said:

I always laugh when this issue of banning computer games is brought up.

Conservative American's who want to put an end to murder, would rather ban a musical artist, or a video game, rather than just banning guns.

And then when someone does become a murderer, they want to fry them. If anyone is adding to America's seemingly violent culture, it is the supporters of gun ownership, the death penalty, war etc, etc... and the people who generally support such things are conservatives. The irony.

Banning guns wouldn't do anything and it sure as Hell isn't the solution. I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.

Stalin, Zedong, and Hitler agree: Gun control works!

KennyJC said:

I always laugh when this issue of banning computer games is brought up.

Conservative American's who want to put an end to murder, would rather ban a musical artist, or a video game, rather than just banning guns.

OK sir, I'm by no means a conservative, but you have to realize that with the downsides of gun ownership, there are enormous benefits that we don't think about. Do you think there's any chance of the USA or Canada turning into what Darfur in Sudan is now? Do you think that a government will raid the countryside, stealing little girls for the purposes of rape? It has happened many times in recent world history, but it could never happen in a country with armed civilians.

I'm no fan of gun violence, but I'm even less a fan of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Just look into the history books a bit and you'll realize that we should not take our country's independence for granted.

I fail to see how that's a valid argument since it's the armies' job to defend their own countries, not the people's.

spank said:

I fail to see how that's a valid argument since it's the armies' job to defend their own countries, not the people's.

That's their "job" in an idealistic, non-existent world. When you untrust such powers to the military, you get disasters such as the Rwandan genocide, the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia... need I name them all? I'm really not interested in what ought to happen in a gumdrops and lollipop world.

the world is messed up :P arguing about it on a doom messageboard isnt gone help :P

AndrewB said:
That's their "job" in an idealistic, non-existent world. When you untrust such powers to the military, you get disasters such as the Rwandan genocide, the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia... need I name them all? I'm really not interested in what ought to happen in a gumdrops and lollipop world.

Both examples you gave had more to do with money from industrialized nations backing warlords than with gun control policies. If civilians in North American wanted to have any chance to make a difference against thier own authorities, if these planned massive repressive action within the nation(s), they'd have to own RPGs, at least.

In nations with a well-developed military, economic power and political activity are more powerful tools for civilians than weapons. If you deal with weapons, weapon experts have the advantage, not civilians, unless there's some form of organized civilian police that monitors the military (doubtful where loyalty is by word taken for granted); a paramilitary force. And who manages that?

What's more, in the African case you mentioned, paramilitaries and non-professional militias were involved in the atrocites. And in Yogoslavia the west mounted a media campaign to accuse Serbians of "ethnic cleansing".

myk said:
If you deal with weapons, weapon experts have the advantage, not civilians

Not really, even a well-train military has a tough time dealing with guerilla warfare, as you can see. Plus, weapons and support don't mean jack when the infantry knows its way around the terrain like the back of their hand, unlike the invading force. Plus, even improvised and simple traps are still effective, punji pits, spiked logs, IEDs, etc.

A civilian population at war is certainly a threat to any trained military. Plus, some people are considered experts with their weapons in the civilian world, hell, I'd at least consider myself a novice of my firearms. Also, some people just have "it", like, they're not really trained, but they can still fight well naturally, somehow. They may eventually die, but it happens.

myk said:

BS

You're totally overcomplicating the debate, while completely missing the point. A well-armed populace will avoid genocides and ethnic cleansing, which is a pretty darned good thing.

The point is that when the civilians are armed, any plans at genocide by ground would never make it past the brainstorming session.

AndrewB said:
You're totally overcomplicating the debate, while completely missing the point. A well-armed populace will avoid genocides and ethnic cleansing, which is a pretty darned good thing.

Rest assurred these "overcomplications" will get deeper once you start looking around. Especially since a well-armed populance is equipped to perpetrate the mass genocide by itself, if organized to do so.

The point is that when the civilians are armed, any plans at genocide by ground would never make it past the brainstorming session.

Why not? I don't see the problem if a large part of the armed civilians were in accord with the state-sponsored genocide and the military were powerful. Does something make you think that armed civilians will naturally form a class that's going to act cohesively in the name of the common good in such events?

I honestly have no idea what you're suggesting. No, military bodies would NOT attempt door-to-door "Rwanda style" genocide against a well-armed populace. Why not? Because the military would suffer devestating casualties from people defending their families.

All the time you hear NRA folk say things like "if everyone had guns then everyone would think twice about causing trouble." OK, that's silly when it comes to street violence, as more guns WOULD increase rates of random violence. However, there IS a hint of truth to that NRA logic in that nobody would attempt large scale acts of door-to-door violence.

Man, I'm talking like a conservative. I feel like bathing in bleach.

Surely in a democracy you should be able to vote out any government that plans genocide and discrimination. If you have to have guns to protect yourself should the government do it, then it doesnt show you have much faith in the state of your country to me.

I was downloading those "harris writings" but now the server is down, was somebody hosting a copy of it on thier server or was it on a police or columbine tribute-style site?. Basically is it likely to come back up?

deathbringer said:

Surely in a democracy you should be able to vote out any government that plans genocide and discrimination. If you have to have guns to protect yourself should the government do it, then it doesnt show you have much faith in the state of your country to me.

And so we shouldn't have faith in the state of the country. Democracy is not widespread in the world. Not only that, but democracies are very fragile.

AndrewB said:

And so we shouldn't have faith in the state of the country. Democracy is not widespread in the world. Not only that, but democracies are very fragile.

Ours has been great for 200+ years...

Yeah, but we're a democratic republic. Not a pure democracy. We're vote on leaders, but then they make decisions that we don't have a say in.

And define "great." On second thought, don't.