Dotzilla wrote:
Sure, his dates are specific, which means he can recall dates and times correctly, but it would be improper of you to assume he was there, in those dates and times in the same capacity as you or I. The fact that his manifesto is so specific but also includes numerous shout-outs to a number of people who he had absolutely no contact with just says that he attaches much more importance to it (and himself) than is necessary. Which would lead me to believe he did that for the initial events as well. Paranoid people who write entire self-aggrandizing manifestos tend to exaggerate events to suit their solipsistic tendencies. The fact that he wrote a manifesto at all just screams mental illness. How narcissistic do you have to be to think what you have to say is so intrinsically important to the world that you write a manifesto with the sole intent of it becoming viral? He obviously intended for it, and expected it. Otherwise, why would he have all those ridiculous shout-outs? Who are the people that write these? People who have committed to something they know they will not return from.
You base all that on one assumption: everything he said was a lie and from that building this whole theory about how he's paranoid, delusional, and invented his own fantasy world, complete with extremely exact dates, times, chronologies, etc...even though you yourself haven't actually read it, and have no reason to believe it is untrue.
Who is it that is building the elaborate fantasy world? You, or him?
Dotzilla wrote:
The entire manifesto is one big masturbatory affair. How the LAPD has wronged HIM. what HE's going to do about it. What those officers MADE HIM do to their innocent families. He's just an innocent bystander in the entire affair. HIS death will change the world. The world made HIM act this way.
I won't argue that police forces in general are wrought with corruption, which is why we have Internal Affairs and the Inspector General. If the guy was getting stonewalled at every single opportunity, then he either had no evidence, no credibility, or had already established himself as someone people just don't listen to. I.E. : Paranoid people with delusions of grandeur. Why didn't he quit and find another department? Why didn't he make anonymous reports to Internal Affairs? Why didn't he contact the FBI? Why didn't he contact a news reporting agency of any kind? They would have eaten it up.
"All complaints are the complainer's fault".
No one cared about black people getting beat up until one time it was caught on tape and the city set on fire.
Why should we believe that has changed? If it's your instinct to blame the solitary complainer and assume the best of the large organization - when you have much less of a reason to do so than the FBI or the media - why expect them to do otherwise?
Dotzilla wrote:
Either way, you're attaching the entirety of police corruption to this situation. Sure, if the San Bernadino police had set the fire and it had caught to another house that happened to have kids in, yeah, that would be bad. So what? Are you saying this man is the vigilante defender of all instances of collateral damage? He's not. He's a murderer who probably set the fire, just like he set his car on fire, then shot himself so you and I would have this exact argument.
Dotzilla wrote:
probably
Bias.
Dotzilla wrote:
Also, a side note: I genuinely like arguing/debating with you Ethan, but can we try to keep it as impersonal as possible? Whenever people use personal experiences of mine to elaborate a point, instead of wanting to engage in a healthy debate with someone I respect (such as you), I just get angry and retaliate, which isn't positive. I obviously can't ask you to stop being you, but for the sake of argument, which we both enjoy, hopefully you won't take offense to this.
I did think long and hard before mentioning that anecdote.
The thing is, every argument is ultimately personal. Since people can't know everything, the way they reach actionable conclusions about life is by fitting in the missing pieces with their own experiences and personality. The human propensity for vanity and egocentrism is necessarily a factor for bias. One can't correct this bias without taking into account the personality and experiences behind it any more than one can see clearly with one's eyes crossed.
It is through comparing and mutually correcting personal viewpoints we find ultimate truth.
Dotzilla wrote:
In retrospect, after reviewing this mindless rant, I half-regret posting in this thread.
Because you don't like how outrageous your bias seems - even to you.
So the question is - find the strength to analyze and overcome your bias, or shrug and live with it? To make a tortured metaphor - red pill or blue pill? Solipsism or metanoia?