Though I would absolutely love to see Target get dragged into court on this, I cannot help but notice things like "suicide," "Aspegers," and employment problems tend to correlate when there are none of those lousy stiiiiinkinnnng fathers around.
Still, I'm sure it was Target that drove this poor soul to suicide and not the lack of a father. Because, as we all know, we don't need no stiiiiinkinnnnng fathers.
Enjoy the decline!
14 comments:
False arrest? Target is going to pay for this one.
A job at Target?
He killed himself over a job at Target?
I was just laid off from a 14 year career as a construction project manager, and you know what I'm doing?
Looking for another job.
Jesus, the frailty of people - a freaking minimum wage job is not a reason to kill yourself.
Sheeple vs. Sheeple.
I hope the sheeple loose big in this contest of sheeple dominance. I need more political elbow room. Maybe there is a non-sheeple in this brouhaha, maybe.
The thing about authority figures and "those-in-charge" types is that most of them have no sense of stewardship: that being the idea that part of their job comprises a kind of "collective servitude" decree.
To them it's all a bottom-line mindset of power-and-control obsessive: showing and reminding everyone "who's boss" and "who runs the show".
Instead of the system accepting responsibility for any shortcomings it may have, it throws the blame on those considered "outcasts" or "misfits" in order to stay in good with the more fraternal majority---to make a good impression on said majority and to foster the illusion that they're "on top of" things and are actively "solving problems", even as their "efforts" are half-assed and uselessly superficial.
It's always been a common cultural practice of "in-charge" types to "demonize" and assassinate the integrity and character of those considered or judged to be "undesirable" in any way.
This is the same sort of practice the police, the media, and the court systems routinely engage in as well.
Humiliation (and even various forms of stonewalling and shanghaiing) has always been the way "those-in-charge" show off to the "average" normal person how they're "keeping the riffraff at bay" and "looking out for their (the normal people's) best interest".
Well Cap, Goober has the right of it. Clearly there was more at work in this boy's mind, and to lay the blame of it on Target or the Mom might be premature.
One of the things you boys of the manosphere never give any attention to is real, honest to God motherhood...what it means, what its implications are and how it applies to good women as well as bad. It's not your fault; it is not really a topic that comes up in the manosphere in this age of decaying families and relationships.
Many women can take the loss of a father or brother with heroic stoicism. Some can even take the loss of a husband and handle it relatively well. But when they lose their children...most women will got batchit fuggin crazy. How strong they are will generally dictate how long they stay that way.
And - it is situations like these that should drive home the value of traditional marriage to even the stupidest men and women: our mother here is facing the loss of her son alone. In a good marriage a good husband will give his wife a rock to cling to as she weathers a psychological shit storm that only women experience in such a situation. Whatever the reason, men tend to handle the loss of children much better than women do.
We probably should pity such women and not mock them. These are real people, real blood and tears...and this particular case might be unfit for fodder in a foolish battle of the sexes.
No, Glen. Such women need to be mocked early and often, and encouraged to apply for benefits from the Smirnoff and Gillette Pension Plan as early as possible.
They need to be reminded at every opportunity that they're the reason their kid offed himself, because they almost always are.
@Glen Filthie,
"But when they lose their children...most women will got batchit fuggin crazy."
Women view their sons as resources, nothing more.
If a woman has more than one son, you can bet that she will have a son she likes the most and a son she hates the most.
You can bet that if there is a fire and she can only save one child, she will save the one she likes the most without hesitation and let the other die.
In fact, women will decide which son is worth loving and grooming and will just abandon the other.
I know, because I am the son of such a mother and I know how it feels like when your mother loves your brother more than you and gives all her affection and resources and time to your brother and basically tells you to fuck off and die.
No, women are not batshit crazy about their children, especially their son.
When it comes to boys, mothers love themselves first and their sons last.
Maybe Target should sue that mother for doing a crappy job at caring for her son.
You are making it sound as though a feminist has used force, the state and whatever powers at her dispostion to evict the father who himself would otherwise be very interested in raising his son.
Sometimes, the father only gives a damn about himself and couldn't care less about what his son becomes.
Holy @#*& Tal! That passage could easily explain not just some of the undercurrents of job politics, but also now the public education structure REALLY operates!
Please note that the screw-ups tend to be more creative and (in my opinion) more effective than the hive-minds.
I say Tal Hartsfeld nailed it.
This problem has been going for decades.
Btw, Tal, I bookmarked your blog, I have to read more of your words.
"Women view their sons as resources, nothing more."
You need to get away from the computer and go outside and experience life.
She has no standing. Her son was an adult. Even if Target executed her son on their front steps, Target didn't harm her. The who point of lawsuits is supposed to redress harm done.
i love it Happy Fathers Day quotes
Post a Comment