Active shooter at Youtube headquaters

originally posted by: ProphetZoroaster
Do you think having your videos on YouTube limited, or demonetized sends someone off the deep end to become a rampage shooter?

Maybe it wasn't just the fact they did that but her impression of why they did that. She may have felt discriminated against. The motive is still kinda hazy but how ironic would it be if these social justice warriors who like to spread the notion that Islamophobia or general discrimination against people from the Middle East is more prevalent than it really is in the US contributed indirectly to this woman feeling like she was being discriminated against for her name or ethnic background or whatever when they demonetized her. Trying to make everyone feel like they're a victim might be good for votes and fundraising but it can have downsides. Not that there's any indication any of that necessarily played a part, just thinking out loud.

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Shame that the shooter looks like a trans- woman. So do you have a name for painting all women with one brush and then including birth males into the equation?

I have but it would be rude.

There's a couple of things that you have wrong here.

First, just because this Iranian feminist "looks" like a man, doesn't make her a man, so men cannot be blamed for HER actions just because she looks like a trans(whatever).

Secondly, feminists paint all men with a brush and label ALL of us as toxic for what they perceive to be irritating to them. If they want to play by those rules. I don't see why I can't do the same.

Third, the term 'feminist' does not equal "woman". feminism is a hate based ideology that just so happens to benefit what these man haters are...women, it is is subsidized by the Government, with options to make their lives easier...subsidies that men do not enjoy.

Fortunately, (for women) 'all women' do fall under the category of privilege, but all men do not. This is why more women are not standing up against them. They will lose all of their benefits if they were to do so.
We will just start with the Affirmative Action option. Clearly there is no deficit of women in the workplace, nor is there an issue with women getting into powerful positions. There is also no shortage of them in the world, and they could vote and do pretty much whatever a man could do generations ago...yet they are STILL called minorities and have fund raisers and charities all over the world funding their every step.

There is no longer any benefit to being a man, nor does anyone give us any free handouts to make our lives easier. It also doesn't benefit a man to get married anymore, as it is actually more profitable for a woman to divorce him and take all of his crap, as well as continue to threaten and control him by using his own child as a battering ram into his wallet. The Government helps women with this too. It's MEN that go to jail for non-payment 99% of the time, have to report to District Attourney's to prove it each month, and most of the time men can't even see their own children without being monitored. Women have absolutely none of this responsibility 99% of the cases. The only time men are awarded the child is if they are wealthy and have the money to supersede any Government assistance for women, or if the woman is an outright crack addict.

So when I attack feminists on here. I am not attacking beneficiaries of the feminist movement, I am calling out the feminists themselves. It's their hate that I am addressing. I think it's fair that if feminists are going to get on the Mainstream Media, and all other forms of media, to puke their hate driven agenda for men, and paint us all as toxic. Then they should get out of the kitchen, if they can't take the heat. Yes, I went there, and I'll pack bags and go on vacation there if I need to.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Shame that the shooter looks like a trans- woman. So do you have a name for painting all women with one brush and then including birth males into the equation?

I have but it would be rude.

I have been on other boards all morning and I think this person is a transgender for sure. I haven't been back since making this thread but I am leaning more towards this person being a Trans. To say they suffer from mental illness is a understatement at this point. This person what ever it is was obviously sick.


Wonder how long it takes to disappear if in fact the person is Trans. I'm sure it will be a non story soon enough...

Well, one can assume all they won't. It doesn't make it a fact. As far as we know now...it was a real female who was Iranian. BTW, this whole Transgender issue belongs to the Liberals, much like every school shooting that has ever happened.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

It's important to distinguish that you're talking about women in western society. Women in other parts of the world still face discrimination and real oppression. It's too bad women here who have it so good choose to protest against nonsense here and pretend they face more hardship than they really do instead of trying to help their fellow woman who is actually facing much worse elsewhere. Feminism in western society jumped the shark decades ago, but as long as you can still make gullible people feel like they're a victim with oversimplified rhetoric like the "wage gap" that is completely misrepresented, and keep bringing in those votes and money, it's not going away.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician


Do feminists have a term for Female Toxicity? Because between this and abortions being the number 1 reason for deaths (way above gun shootings and even Heart Disease), it seems that they are getting to be pretty toxic for our country.

The Patriarchy.

You're welcome.

I am not sure how to respond to this post because Patriarchy is an illusory excuse for the way feminists behave. It may exist in the Middle East where they have full control of women, but it certainly does not define the Western world in any form. It's all B.S. is what I am getting at. What does "The Patriarchy" have to do with anything I posted?

...and I never once said thank you for anything.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Didn’t the shooter read the sign “No Guns”!

Pretty sure if I started pointing out that Again in America the gun remains the common element in theses horrible shootings I would be called out for it.

Say this again but slowly....repeat until you realize that your observations are obvious...thus need no pointing out.

You will likely be called out for it because its an unnecessary statement....kinda like trying to point out that arson involves fire....

also....if you rip up the 2nd amendment you have immediately made close to a million deaths in vain. You do know that people have fought and died to secure that very right your wanting to rip up?

Additionally....do you know how many criminals you would instantly create ripping up the 2nd? How much VIOLENT conflict you would incite with such an action?

Since the theme here is pointing out the obvious....I might as well point out how recklessly naive you are if you actually believe ripping up the 2nd as ANY kind of solution to anything....If anything you will create MORE violence and division than you could possibly stomach.

You can rip up the 2nd....but you have to win the war after that, and since your ilk isn't so keen on weapons and violence....the odds aren't in your favor.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
I think it quite possible given the fact that female shooters are rare, that the guy who believed it to be a male shooter was just presuming so, and, looking at the woman herself she is rather manly and I understand was wearing body armour

Although female "shooters" are rare, female murders are not. More women poison people (predominately their husbands) and are more clandestine about killing...but it doesn't mean they kill any less. My wife is a nurse, and the statistics for women in nursing murdering the elderly are high. They are also (according to my wife) very calloused and cavalier about it. it's nothing to them to murder someone who is giving them trouble in a hospital or care facility, and they kill them by suffocation or by mixing a myriad of drugs together and intravenously giving them what is called a "cocktail". As it's hard to prove, (because they are Septuagenarian's and Octogenarian's usually), most of these murders are successful without investigation. My wife has seen many of these, almost as if they're policy. Women are also the #1 killers in America...hands down. There are more abortions of children a year than gun murders, heart disease and car crashes combined.

Women that abort children, or violently kill them while in postpartum depression, get some pretty good rest at night by the media hugs and other women blowing smoke up their @$$es, as well as organizations like Planned Parenthood (funded by the Government...so it 'must' be moral) telling them that it's just a natural process if they are not ready to be parents. Yet, men do not have an option for getting out of their responsibilities when it comes to children. Men are crucified...ready or not, and you all know it.

Killing ANY human, or 'would be' human, with a heartbeat is murder, despite what these women are told to think. Even if they are not fully grown humans yet, these women take away the right of the child to ever be a fully grown human being...all for their own selfishness. Had it not been for their intervention with Planned Parenthood, it's likely that the child would have been born and just like the rest of us. It's only by their violent intervention, that the process of growth was stopped...which is a paramount step for anyone wanting to be born, and we all had that right. Had these calloused women not cut those babies into pieces...most of the children would be alive today, doing everything that we enjoy doing. Yet, these women took that option away from them, many times without even telling the father, thus taking away his choice as well, and somehow they have the nerve to get angry at anyone who debates them about it. Claiming men don't have any right to even speak of abortions...despite the fact that they are more than eager to take our tax dollars to do it. No one pays for men's condoms btw.

So yeah, women don't shoot more people than men, but they definitely kill more humans than men by the hundred's of thousands a year.

I sometimes hear women saying things to men like "It's my body and I'll do what I want with it!" or the famous line "Don't tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body." Here's wake up call for you....
It's not those women's bodies getting chopped into pieces, sucked out and thrown away into a garbage can, as if they were nothing at all. The women's bodies aren't affected at all.
On that note, what do you think the child would say, if he or she had a say in the matter? If that child had a voice, it would have every right to those bad excuses for parents "It's MY body, and you won't do what you want to with it"....alas, they have no say whatsoever. They are simply murdered, and thrown away literally like garbage.

So in essence, yes...women are not as violent (outwardly) as men, but they do kill hundred's of thousands of more humans than men do yearly. Just look up the abortion statistics online.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

It's important to distinguish that you're talking about women in western society. Women in other parts of the world still face discrimination and real oppression. It's too bad women here who have it so good choose to protest against nonsense here and pretend they face more hardship than they really do instead of trying to help their fellow woman who is actually facing much worse elsewhere. Feminism in western society jumped the shark decades ago, but as long as you can still make gullible people feel like they're a victim with oversimplified rhetoric like the "wage gap" that is completely misrepresented, and keep bringing in those votes and money, it's not going away.

I'll give you star for that.

You're 100% correct. Feminism is a Western crybaby festival and the real issues are outside of the Western World...and feminists simply ignore that fact, because it doesn't fit their narrative of getting free stuff and being able to do what they want. If I were a woman (in general) I would probably not stop them either, because I would indirectly be benefiting from the simple fact that they are still women (I would argue that, but I digress). The point is, as long as their are Strong and Powerful women....who, when something goes wrong, can then become a victim of men again...this problem will remain. Many women out there need to know what it's really like to be a man and not have a big Government dragon standing behind them protecting their every move. Without the Government intervention for them, they wouldn't stand a chance.

originally posted by: Sly1one

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Didn’t the shooter read the sign “No Guns”!

Pretty sure if I started pointing out that Again in America the gun remains the common element in theses horrible shootings I would be called out for it.

Say this again but slowly....repeat until you realize that your observations are obvious...thus need no pointing out.

You will likely be called out for it because its an unnecessary statement....kinda like trying to point out that arson involves fire....

also....if you rip up the 2nd amendment you have immediately made close to a million deaths in vain. You do know that people have fought and died to secure that very right your wanting to rip up?

Additionally....do you know how many criminals you would instantly create ripping up the 2nd? How much VIOLENT conflict you would incite with such an action?

Since the theme here is pointing out the obvious....I might as well point out how recklessly naive you are if you actually believe ripping up the 2nd as ANY kind of solution to anything....If anything you will create MORE violence and division than you could possibly stomach.

You can rip up the 2nd....but you have to win the war after that, and since your ilk isn't so keen on weapons and violence....the odds aren't in your favor.

Not that I disagree with you entirely, but just because people died for a certain right, as society changes over time, that does not make it exempt. Again, just because lots died for something does not mean thats why it cant be challenged.

originally posted by: JimboFish
I have no problem with what she did.

Some people or groups only respond to suffering and violence.

What YouTube has done with little conservative channels is very wrong.

Sometimes you gotta bust some ass.

Sorry liberal YouTube!!

Uh no, that's not the answer. How about a BIG exodus from the service instead. These net conglomerates won't learn a lesson from killing and maiming their staff, they don't care(not even to mention more laws could come about restricting people), they will learn a lesson when people take it upon themselves to starve them off.

a reply to: Soulece

I absolutely agree with you. That part of my response was in regards to this part of the statement from the individual I was responding to: "OtherSideOfTheCoin".

"the second amendment needs ripped up in the names of all those who have died in its name."

While I didn't quote that particular part of the users statement (which I should have) that is what your quoted portion of my statement is in response to. Essentially countering their supposition that doing things in the name of those who have died is inherently justified. Ironically pointing out that there are "two sides to that coin".

Having said that...certain choices contain certain realities. I still stand behind my statement that the choice the new people make to rip up the 2nd will come with certain realities I believe they are not in any way, shape or form ready to contend with.

I think people (typically on the left) underestimate the value, importance and severity of the 2nd amendment. Many on the left seem to consider it a simple policy change....because they don't have or use guns and are rather complacent in their lives depending on the system....to them its an irrelevant or obsolete policy and its eradication will not effect their way of life in any negative way (that they can or are willing to see). To millions of others....its significantly more important on several different levels.

SO....if people wan't to eradicate the second...they could very well do that, there is a means in place for it. HOWEVER....there will be consequences....This isn't like banning markers in pre-school....there will be blood.

She got in through a garage door. All campuses have access roads that anyone can drive through in order to allow FedEx and other delivery companies access. Usually only defence companies who would have high fences, an entry guard and sliding gates. Some campus buildings also have underground car parks, which are also open access unless there is a fire alarm and the shutter doors come down. Some campuses usually have garden areas for employees to have lunch outdoors and these are next to the car parks so that food vendors can visit.

It's easy enough to tailgate someone else into a building. Some buildings have reception doors which are unlocked. To get into the restricted areas just wait for an employee to swipe their ID card, open the door and follow them in. That is a big problem with many companies. They would have local thieves just wander into buildings and steal poessessions.

This is really just another case of an "employee" going "postal". There was a time when there were always news reports about one or other US postal office having mass fatalities because someone who had been fired from their job, came back and shot everyone else because they felt they had been victimised.

By IRS standards, she would be considered an employee of Youtube, because Youtube were her employer and paid her a commission based on how many views or adverts people watched. Essentially her job is to create content and earns royalty from that content. Then Youtube decide to "fire" her by demonetizing her account for purely political reasons with no previous warning. Given the high cost of living, Californian law prevents companies from simply firing someone without giving due notice or fair warning. Same with rental property.

Is this a pic of her on a dating ad that popped up here today?

a reply to: Sly1one

SO....if people wan't to eradicate the second...they could very well do that, there is a means in place for it. HOWEVER....there will be consequences....This isn't like banning markers in pre-school....there will be blood.

I so agree with you. I will go a little further and add that many underestimate the value, importance, and severity, of the entire Constitution.

They forget why we have the Constitution. The founding fathers knew the government was full of a bunch of corrupt, self serving, untrustworthy people. That is why everyone had to sign the the document. They knew there was no real gentleman's honor and that the word alone was no bond.

The Constitution was put in place to protect the American people. They forget the Constitution was put in place to protect us from a rogue, corrupt, self serving government. From its very beginning there have been those that have tried to undermine and destroy the Constitution. To allow it to be modified out of existence only benefits a few. A small, wealthy, and elitist few.

We can't be that shortsighted or gullible.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


When someone commits suicide because they've been bullied, systematically harassed or even physically intimidated ; Do you suggest removing or destroying the First Amendment ?

When someone becomes homeless, or has trouble paying their rent/mortgage, do you suggest removing the Third Amendment ?

When a community is blatantly losing the War on Drugs, do you suggest destroying or removing the Fourth Amendment ?


I mean, if removing even one of these protected rights will make America a better place, doesn't it stand to reason that removing others, would be even more effective ?

a reply to: Black_Fox

Before games, violent movies ruined our children. Before movies, books with bad messages tainted youth. Before books, raunchy statues damaged fragile little minds. All the way back to those mind numbing cave paintings all the young croods stared at.

Point is, the previous generation will always find something to demonize about WHATEVER entertainment you enjoy. Rather then take any real steps to secure or better our culture.

I might have made an ignorant passive aggressive comment last night somewhere in the 28 pages of this thread about US gun culture... I think I was a little 'over hydrated', maybe.

Seriously though, after looking further into the actual incident, it becomes abundantly clear that this had nothing to do with 'lax gun laws' or 'US gun culture'.... This was a 39 year old woman with no criminal record or history of mental illness, with a 9mm hand gun legally registered in her own name... I think their was another societal issue here, which has nothing to do with gun control.

Obviously this Nasim Aghdam women was an odd ball and her youtube videos were weird, to say the least... But so what?

It seems like she put a lot of work into her videos and no matter what people personally think about the quality of them, she was putting herself out their and after all, it was her art... Seems like she was also making a living out of it too, from what I've read... So good for her!

But then youtube demonetized her account, which she clearly worked so hard on to make profitable... for no other reason as far as I can tell, except that she was extremely passionate about animal rights and is of Iranian descent... Which results in her living out of her car with no income or way of supporting herself.

As it happens, she was so distraught & angry by youtubes actions, that it become the straw that broke the camels back... She commits suicide!

Randomly going after youtube employees like that obviously can't be justified... But never the less, its all very sad, imo.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I might have made an ignorant passive aggressive comment last night somewhere in the 28 pages of this thread about US gun culture... I think I was a little 'over hydrated', maybe.

Seriously though, after looking further into the actual incident, it becomes abundantly clear that this had nothing to do with 'lax gun laws' or 'US gun culture'.... This was a 39 year old woman with no criminal record or history of mental illness, with a 9mm hand gun legally registered in her own name... I think their was another societal issue here, which has nothing to do with gun control.

The entire gun control issue is a societal issue. White guys shooting up schools with AR-15s are exceptionally rare. The vast majority of our gun violence is suicide. Of the murders, the vast majority of them are done with handguns in cities that already have strict gun laws. Most of them are only a few shots fired, so magazine limits wouldn't make a difference. All the stuff gun control advocates want us to do wouldn't work, and even if they did work would barely put a dent in the number of people killed every year. And when you try to shift the conversation to things that might actually put a dent in the deaths, you just get called a terrorist and told you love dead kids so you can sell more guns.