Talk:Misogynist terrorism

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that misogynist terrorism is listed as a "rising threat" by counter-terrorism researchers? Source: [1]

Created by Jno.skinner (talk). Self-nominated at 16:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

• The article is new enough and long enough with no copyright violations (per history, DYK check, my checks, and Earwig). I assume good faith on the references that I can't access. The hook is directly cited. A QPQ is not needed. This is ready. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose

I wish include terrorists acts by Boko Haram and ISIS regarding sexual violence and slavery by these terrorists groups, but I don't know if that follows the propose of the page.

This page is about misogynists motivations for terrorists acts or can include misogynists acts during other motivatins terrorism ?

Nelsolino (talk · contribs)

Thank you Nelsolino for brining up this very good question! The focus for this article was determined by the sources I found who use the term "misogynist terrorism" or variants of the term. These were mainly counter-terrorism organizations like the ICCT and the authors Jessica Valenti and Kate Manne. These sources use the term only to describe terrorist acts that are primarily or exclusively motivated by misogyny. They do not use the word for terrorist acts motivated by religion or nationalism, even if misogyny is somewhat a part of the religious or nationalist beliefs. The acts of terror that these authors list are all in the US, Canada, and Europe.

The fact that Boko Haram uses sexual violence or slavery is not enough, in my opinion, to link Boko Haram to misogynist terrorism. Sexual violence is, unfortunately, a common tactic of war. However, if Boko Haram has specifically misogynist ideological commitments (aside from mere tactics) then I would agree that they have something in common with misogynist terrorists. Because they also have religious motivations I wouldn't say Boko Haram are properly misogynist terrorists, but I would agree that they have a connection worthy of mention.

Because of your suggestion I added Boko Haram to the "See also" section of the article. Any more direct claim that they are connected to misogynist terrorism would require a source, in my view. The same would be true of anti-abortion violence, etc.

Jno.skinner (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, while Boko Haram are misogynists they are not primarily motivated by a misogynist agenda. The primary motivation for their actions is Islamic extremism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoraExp (talk • contribs) 07:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed"

An editor has added a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" banner. What is the dispute? Jno.skinner (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Starkex: what POV issues are in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Greetings!

I strongly believe that this article is written on a Feminist POV and the article may suffer from biases unless it is neutralized, the following lines which can be possibly written by a Feminist possible are:

Proving manhood

• Valenti writes that some misogynist terrorists have been motivated by a desire to live up to a stereotype that "real men" are powerful.

Sexual and romantic entitlement

• Mass murderers, in some cases identifying as incels, have described being motivated by a perception of entitlement to sex or companionship with women, a desire to seek vengeance for the perception of being rejected by women, and a drive to put women "in their place". For example, in the 2014 Isla Vista attack, the perpetrator set out to "punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex." Incel ideology has been a contributing factor to 90 fatalities and injuries since this attack, as of early 2020. Feminist writer Jessica Valenti argues that such incels should be viewed as misogynist terrorists and warns that they are being radicalized online.

Problems which men face in the modern world

• These groups present masculine strength, a lack of vulnerability, a lack of emotion, and other stereotypes of masculinity as solutions to these problems

⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 11:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are indeed correct that those passages reflect a feminist perspective — the first two contain attributions to Jessica Valenti and the final one is attributed (in the article but not in your excerpt) to Laura Bates. These are feminist authors. So, let us note they are not "in Wikipedia's voice" but are attributed WP:INTEXT, which is standard for POV material. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Jno nailed it. Unless there are other issues, we should remove the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing nothing further here, I have removed the banner. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Provided clarification on usage of the term "incel". A lot more work needs to be done on this article to provide views on all sides, and not just the feminist pov, as mentioned in the previous talk page. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I encourage the editors of wikipedia to find sources talking about the mental issues that turn lonely, repressed men into killers and abusers. Social conditioning, the hatred of masculinity, bias in education etc. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, do not make any further edits until the neutrality of the edits is completely clear, and find other sources. Adenyoyo (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edits worsened the neutrality of the article (e.g. , and you can't demand that other editors not make further edits. Having now been reverted twice, it's you that should be the most cautious about future editing without affirmative consensus here. It's essential that sourced content not be removed without explanation, that newly added content be supported by a source, and that content not be added in a way that makes it seem like the pre-existing source supports the new content (see WP:HIJACK). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. Generalrelative (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Totally agree with @Adenyoyo:. The entire article, and especially the introduction part, sounds like it was written by (or is exclusively quoting) extreme feminists. This article is not neutral in the least. Instead of discussing the actual reasons that make these people go insane (i. e. non-fulfillment of the most basic human/male needs over very long periods of time, with no realistic chance of that ever changing, leading to immense suffering and consequently severe mental issues), the article just spouts some feminist nonsense/buzzwords like "entitlement", "male supremacism", "policing of compliance to patriarchy" etc. etc. This is ridiculous and reeks of propaganda. Just throwing random buzzwords at the perpetrators of such acts does not contribute to understanding the underlying problems that lead to them. 80.108.55.24 The intro reflects the rest of the article, which is buttressed with references to governmental counter-terrorism agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as to organizations that study terrorism, including the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, and Southern Poverty Law Center. You are welcome to bring reliable sources and specific suggestions to challenge or add to existing text. The use of perjoratives such as "insane", "nonsense," and "random" are more likely to get your comments deleted as unconstructive soapboxing. PRRfan (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Read that sentence again, I did not use the word "insane" in a pejorative way. When it comes to politically biased, feminist buzzwords, descriptions like "random" and "nonsense" are perfectly valid, since the terms I'm criticizing are not neutral and try to paint the entire issue from a one-sided perspective. Drawing attention to these issues to hopefully get a less biased and one-sided article is not "soapboxing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

2021 Atlanta spa shootings

I've again removed this entry from the list for the reason explained in the edit summary. As another editor (Lostsandwich—who seemed to have no knowledge of the event until noticing my edit and reading the referenced news article I had an issue with) disagreed with my first removal of it in April, maybe it would be better discussed here.

According to reliable sources, the shooter himself, and investigators, the shooter was an evangelical Christian who had a self-described sex addiction (going to the parlors he shot up for their sexual services). He committed the shootings to vent his frustrations about his addiction and to remove the temptation (out-of-wedlock sex at said parlors) for others. There is no evidence that he held animosity towards women overall or was concerned with them not "complying to patriarchal gender expectations." There was no misogynistic journal, manifesto, or anecdotal stories from family or ex-classmates—nothing.

The source that was used here, written shortly after the shootings, was the only one I've been able to find that specifically depicts it as the act of a woman-hater, which the other entries on this list legitimately were. The shootings occurred at the height of Stop Asian Hate, and as most of the victims were Asian, it was believed by the writer of the referenced article that the parlors were targeted because the employees were predominantly Asian. This was later determined to not be true. While the New York Times is a reliable source, reliable sources often get things wrong, especially in immediate aftermaths.

I have been following these cases for a long time, and it seems the media will always give a rushed version of events. For example, after the Sandy Hook shooting, "reliable" sources claimed that the shooter operated a website dedicated to Satan (with a black background and scary red text)... and also interviewed a random person claiming to be his hairdresser who gave a ridiculous story; none of these have been mentioned since those early reports, and those details, rightly, are not included on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting page. Like those stories, the Atlanta spa shootings being the act of someone down on Asian women has also not been mentioned since, because we now have all the details.

I would hope these things are taken into consideration before being put in an encyclopedia. With that said, if another editor deems it necessary to add it back to the list, I won't bother again. Swinub (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, one last note: the article (opinion piece) that was used as a source for this explicitly states, "Very little is known about the motives of the Atlanta gunman" at the time of its writing. Swinub (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated in your own edit and as was likely stated any previous time when it was explained to you "(being) upset about his sex addiction" and targeting women is fundamentally an act of misogynist terrorism. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. While the perpetrator was obviously misogynistic and was targeting women, I do not think this act can be classified as misogynist terrorism. The perpetrator was acting out of perceived wrongs inflicted upon him, not attempting to fundamentally punish or influence women as a whole. The perpetrator left no writings indicating that he was intending to punish women as a whole, no reliable sources continue to claim that this act was misogynist terrorism.

The perpetrator was targeting specific women for reasons specific to his religious delusions, not targeting or attempting to intimidate women as a whole and not for the purpose of furthering a patriarchal agenda. As such, this would not fit the definition of misogynist terrorism as outlined in the article.

I don’t think this incident should be included in the article until a consensus is reached. Macxcxz (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You can disagree and continue to be wrong all you want. Unfortunately, basic ignorance isn't great editing policy.

>While the perpetrator was obviously misogynistic and was targeting women, I do not think this act can be classified as misogynist terrorism.

So the perpetrator was obviously misogynistic, and targeting women, but somehow none of his misogynistic targeting of women was... not misogynistic or terrorism.

Strange.

> The perpetrator was acting out of perceived wrongs inflicted upon him, not attempting to fundamentally punish or influence women as a whole.

Those perceived wrongs were fundamentally misogynistic, and the pursuit of punishing them specifically terrorism.

So please, tell me again how someone looking to Do Something to X, is not actually someone wanting to Do Something to X.

> The perpetrator left no writings indicating that he was intending to punish women as a whole, no reliable sources continue to claim that this act was misogynist terrorism.

Luckily, we don't need that.

>The perpetrator was targeting specific women for reasons specific to his religious delusions

That's called misogyny

>As such, this would not fit the definition of misogynist terrorism as outlined in the article.

Perhaps you should re-read that article?

Misogynist terrorism often targets representatives or stand-ins for a type of person that the terrorist feels anger toward.

and

Alex DiBranco considers this motivation related to sexual entitlement because it also blames women for the perpetrator's own sexual desires

Please tell me again how killing female sex workers to "eliminate temptation" is not a misogynistic act. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point. It does not matter whether you or I think this is misogynistic terrorism, the fact is that no reliable source says that it is, which is the only way it can be included in this article. Everything I said was based off of reliable sources, none of which determined that this shooting was an act of misogynistic terrorism.

You may think that to add this incident is ‘common sense’, but common sense isn’t enough. It needs reliable sources to be included. Macxcxz (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

> you misunderstand my point. It does not matter whether you or I think this is misogynistic terrorism, the fact is that no reliable source says that it is, which is the only way it can be included in this article.

I guess you missed the part where I told you to read the article.

https://www.vox.com/22336317/atlanta-georgia-shootings-racism-misogyny-targeting-asian-women

Oopsies

Vox is considered generally reliable

Next? Lostsandwich (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This source suffers the exact same issues as the NYT article. It was made 2 days after the shooting and its contents are largely based on speculation from the author and experts which is inconsistent with new information that was released as the investigation and trial of the shooter went on, as User:Swinub pointed out. The publication is reliable, but that does not mean every article is reliable and will remain reliable forever. This article is outdated, just like the NYT article, despite both being from publishers considered generally reliable. It’s inappropriate for usage in this article. Macxcxz (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oops! You *failed again* to show anything that was incorrect about the article, and you *failed again* to demonstrate *any other source* that says otherwise. Incredible that a simple google search shows that yes, agencies reporting on the crime *do in fact* realize the sexual nature of the crime. Interesting how someone who wants to interject about a "2 day old source" being speculation takes the words of another editor at face-value (that "every other source" or some such) but doesn't do their own due diligence here.

In order for your claims about "poor sourcing" to have a single shred of meaning you'll need to:

1) Demonstrate any volume of evidence that claims otherwise

2) Demonstrate that "punishing (women) for his sexual addiction (to women)" is not a misogynistic crime

3) Stating something elementary like someone committing target acts against a group is an example of crimes that target a specific group requires the same kind of manner of reliable sourcing like say... A date or a name would. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Terrorism" has a lot of reasonable debate over its definition. Describing something as terrorism on Wikipedia is never straightforward. The bare minimum here is a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The bare minimum was provided. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Where? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't be taken seriously with such a response. If you aren't here in good faith, leave. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm here in good faith, but I don't mind leaving. It seems like consensus is against Lostsandwich's changes. If that looks to be shifting, I'd appreciate a ping so I can re-evaluate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached, and editors involved in such a "consensus" didn't even broach the topic, and have still failed to demonstrate what they claimed was the issue, as I noted above. You're welcome to return to the topic when you can discuss in good faith. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

"Demonstrate that "punishing (women) for his sexual addiction (to women)" is not a misogynistic crime"

This word punishment that you are bent on has nothing to do with the case. He made no mention of punishing anyone, and while his acts were illogical, it seems like simple monkey-brained cause-and-effect. He was upset for religious reasons about those parlors (that he went to frequently for what he considered sinful activities), so he went to those same parlors to kill people, to, in his mind, put a stop to them, and to vent his frustrations about the whole thing. He never stated, "I have a specific seething hatred for (women or female sex workers)... these individuals did this to me and must be punished"; in fact, he also shot men at the parlors purposely.

This is a very abstract interpretation of misogynist terrorism, and other editors cannot be expected to spoon-feed you facts about sexuality, religion, or unwell people's psyches, or why someone killing a woman does not equal them being killed because they are a woman. If he were gay and killed male escorts, this would be discussed as a religion and sexuality issue, which it was. You seem more motivated to find any reason to bring it back to the page without coming to a justifiable conclusion about whether it should be. Reasons why the source is not reliable have been elaborated upon, and reasons why your interpretation of events is false have also been elaborated upon. I am not sure where to go from here besides excluding it from the list. Swinub (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

>This word punishment that you are bent on has nothing to do with the case.

Is that so?

Long had been a customer at two of the massage parlors, and saw them as sources of sexual temptation.

Long claims to have initially thought about killing himself but instead decided to target the businesses to "help" others dealing with sex addiction

According to the Cherokee County Sheriff's Department, Long wanted to "eliminate the temptation" by targeting spas.

Ruth Graham, a national religion correspondent of The New York Times, wrote that Long "seemed to have a fixation on sexual temptation, one that can lead to despair among people who believe they are failing to follow the ideal of refraining from sex and even lust outside heterosexual marriage."

According to Samuel Perry, a professor of sociology and author of three books on the modern evangelical church, the church's confusing sex rhetoric can lead to desperation over perceived sex addiction and a belief that one must take extreme measures to stop it.

So there's that put to rest.

> He never stated, "I have a specific seething hatred for (women or female sex workers)..

He didn't need to.

He targeted female sex workers to punish them for being tempting.

If you want to be even more reductive, he targeted female sex workers. Fundamentally misogynistic.

Glad we've put that to rest.

>This is a very abstract interpretation of misogynist terrorism

Targeting female sex workers is fundamentally misogynistic.

> or why someone killing a woman does not equal them being killed because they are a woma

And as it turns out, he didn't kill them because... they were involved in some road rage incident, or it was in the middle of an armed robbery, or because they were supported of the New York Giants, or just because he felt like shooting wildly into a public place.

He killed them because they were women.

> If he were gay and killed male escorts, this would be discussed as a religion and sexuality issue, which it was.

If he killed male escorts, it would be looked at as a crime against males? You don't say.

>Reasons why the source is not reliable have been elaborated upon,

Actually they haven't been. Sorry, you're "it's 2 days old" fails because you've failed to substantiate that as a reasonable claim.

>, and reasons why your interpretation of events is false have also been elaborated upon. I am not sure where to go from here besides excluding it from the list.

Oh cool, so now you're outright lying. You, and no one else here, has done nothing of the sort.

Oh by the way, in addition to outright lying, you've still ignored:

1) Demonstrate any volume of evidence that claims otherwise

2) Demonstrate that "punishing (women) for his sexual addiction (to women)" is not a misogynistic crime

3) Stating something elementary like someone committing target acts against a group is an example of crimes that target a specific group requires the same kind of manner of reliable sourcing like say... A date or a name would

Which curiously, you've refused to do. Lostsandwich (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I encourage you to look up the definition of the word "punishment," as you have not put anything to rest. "He killed them because they were women." No, he didn't, actually. The rest of your response is emotionally charged, and there is nothing else to explain, as it has been explained to you already. As I said, "other editors cannot be expected to spoon-feed you facts about sexuality, religion, or unwell people's psyches," so I am not going to continue going back and forth about this. It's all been stated already. Have a nice night. Swinub (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

>I encourage you to look up the definition of the word "punishment," as you have not put anything to rest.

Actually what I demonstrated were his motives, which were punitive.

>He killed them because they were women." No, he didn't, actually

Oh, so what was the reason for the killing again?

According to the police, Long described his actions as being the result of a sex addiction that conflicted with his religious belief

So... it was because they were women (and sex workers)

, and saw them as sources of sexual temptation.

What was he tempted by again?

Long claims to have initially thought about killing himself but instead decided to target the businesses to "help" others dealing with sex addiction

By killing women.

According to the Cherokee County Sheriff's Department, Long wanted to "eliminate the temptation" by targeting spas

Which he would try to do by once again... Targeting women.

>. The rest of your response is emotionally charged, and there is nothing else to explain, as it has been explained to you already

I see you've decided to simply engage in bad faith responses. You've provided nothing beyond "this article is 2 days old".

> As I said, "other editors cannot be expected to spoon-feed you facts about sexuality, religion, or unwell people's psyches," so I am not going to continue going back and forth about this. It's all been stated already. Have a nice nigh

Great, you can take your concession and revert your edits

or,

do what is required to support your claim. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Targeting women in an attack for misogynistic reasons is not always going to necessarily be misogynist terrorism, which is something this Wikipedia page makes clear. This is the same way that not every hate crime can be considered terrorism.

This is not a crime driven by intentions to threaten, intimidate or influence the behaviour of a group of people as a whole, which is the fundamental basis for identifying any form of terrorism. The shooters choice of victims and motivations were entirely personal to him alone, not representative of a broader ideological purpose. He left no writings, made no statements in court, and left no other indication that this act was intended to be an act against women as a whole. Nobody is doubting that he was targeting women, and his views were blatantly misogynistic, but that does not automatically make his actions a form of misogynistic terrorism.

The reasons why the sources provided, both the NYT article and the Vox article, are unsuitable have been explained. They both use the shooting as a talking point about the broader issue of anti-Asian hate crimes and the hyper-sexualisation of Asian women, which is of course fine, however these articles were made before the shooter's motivations were fully understood and it has since been discovered that his motivations were not related to anti-Asian or a misogynistic ideology. As shown in any article written post-trial, the shooter's motive is conclusively a personal conflict between his sexual desires and his religion, not an attempt to intimidate women as a whole.

In regards to this part of your message: Macxcxz (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

1) Demonstrate any volume of evidence that claims otherwise

2) Demonstrate that "punishing (women) for his sexual addiction (to women)" is not a misogynistic crime

3) Stating something elementary like someone committing target acts against a group is an example of crimes that target a specific group requires the same kind of manner of reliable sourcing like say... A date or a name would

1. I don't know what you are referring to with this.

2. We do not need to demonstrate this, a reliable source needs to demonstrate this.

3. No, this would only be indicative of a hate crime, not terrorism. Applying terms like misogynist terrorism are not something that can be based off of personal opinion or intuition and requires evidence of terroristic intent. Macxcxz (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

>Targeting women

Targeting women

Great, glad you've finally let that sink in.

>in an attack for misogynistic reasons

for misogynistic reasons

Great, glad you've finally let that sink in.

>is not always going to necessarily be misogynist terrorism, which is something this Wikipedia page makes clear. This is the same way that not every hate crime can be considered terrorism.

LMAO

now we're changing gears because you admit you were arguing in bad faith before, and are trying to switch to "it's not terrorism"

Let's look at what wikipedia has to say about it shall we?

misogynist terrorism is terrorism that is motivated by the desire to punish women.

Misogynist terrorism uses mass indiscriminate violence in an attempt to avenge nonconformity with those expectations or to reinforce the perceived superiority of men.

Misogynist terrorism often targets representatives or stand-ins for a type of person that the terrorist feels anger toward

As is typical of terrorism, these acts are intended to cause widespread fear. Any woman may reasonably be unsettled about the potential of being targeted, notes philosopher Kate Manne, because often victims of these killings are treated as essentially interchangeable.

Women are targeted merely because they fit a certain type rather than because they have any particular relationship to the killer.

Instead, misogynist terrorists often express a desire to target women of a particular type, either as revenge for perceived slights

Can't want to watch you try to back pedal on that too.

>This is not a crime driven by intentions to threaten, intimidate or influence the behaviour of a group of people as a whole, which is the fundamental basis for identifying any form of terrorism

Oh look, demonstrating to be again, arguing in bad faith, or at the very least, completely uninteresting in actually educating yourself on the topic.

According to the police, Long described his actions as being the result of a sex addiction that conflicted with his religious beliefs

Long had been a customer at two of the massage parlors, and saw them as sources of sexual temptation

instead decided to target the businesses to "help" others dealing with sex addiction.

Long "seemed to have a fixation on sexual temptation, one that can lead to despair among people who believe they are failing to follow the ideal of refraining from sex and even lust outside heterosexual marriage.

the church's confusing sex rhetoric can lead to desperation over perceived sex addiction and a belief that one must take extreme measures to stop it.

Next?

>He left no writings, made no statements in court, and left no other indication that this act was intended to be an act against women as a whole.

Oops! See above.

>Nobody is doubting that he was targeting women

So you'll be reverting your edits.

>The reasons why the sources provided, both the NYT article and the Vox article, are unsuitable have been explained.

Crying that an article being "2 days old is bad" answers nothing and you've done absolutely zip diddly squat otherwise but repeat "but it's 2 days old" as if that is meaningful of anything.

> They both use the shooting as a talking point about the broader issue of anti-Asian hate crimes and the hyper-sexualisation of Asian women, which is of course fine, however these articles were made before the shooter's motivations were fully understood and it has since been discovered that his motivations were not related to anti-Asian or a misogynistic ideology.

Luckily, that articles already explained to you the relationship between the hypersexualization and fetishization of race and gender.(Something which was already explained to you) which thus, adequately explains the phenomena of hypersexualiztion and fetishization of race and gender- meaning, the information contained within is not "out of date".

All you've done is chosen to ignore that explanation and extracted the single topic of "race" from the entire writing, which is neither the conclusion of the piece, nor the sole substance of any part of it.

>or a misogynistic ideology.

Oops! Caught you in a lie again. Convenient how you are now both ignoring when you admitted that was the case, and where all available information says that as well.

>As shown in any article written post-trial, the shooter's motive is conclusively a personal conflict between his sexual desires and his religion, not an attempt to intimidate women as a whole.

Oh!

You mean the material you failed to ever provide?

Or the material that states it was his desire to punish women for being tempting?

Go ahead. Pick one.

>1. I don't know what you are referring to with this.

I'll say it again and maybe you can read it a bit closer:

1) Demonstrate any volume of evidence that claims otherwise

Go ahead, I'm still waiting for you to do that.

2)We do not need to demonstrate this, a reliable source needs to demonstrate this.

Waiting.

3)No, this would only be indicative of a hate crime, not terrorism. Applying terms like misogynist terrorism are not something that can be based off of personal opinion or intuition and requires evidence of terroristic intent.

Oh great, now we're waffling about terms again and we've moved back to "it's misogynistic but it's not terrorism".

Fortunately, I've already demonstrated that to be the case. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

"Misogynist terrorism is terrorism that is motivated by the desire to punish women" ... of which there was none in this case. It seems like some type of Rorschach test, and only you are having this interpretation of the events. I cannot read the rest of your response because greentexting does not work outside of 4chan and there are too many words to sift through here. I will assume you have smugly repeated the same things you did in your other replies, which were sufficiently addressed. Swinub (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

>"Misogynist terrorism is terrorism that is motivated by the desire to punish women" ... of which there was none in this case.

Oops!

According to the police, Long described his actions as being the result of a sex addiction that conflicted with his religious beliefs

Long had been a customer at two of the massage parlors, and saw them as sources of sexual temptation

instead decided to target the businesses to "help" others dealing with sex addiction.

Long "seemed to have a fixation on sexual temptation, one that can lead to despair among people who believe they are failing to follow the ideal of refraining from sex and even lust outside heterosexual marriage.

the church's confusing sex rhetoric can lead to desperation over perceived sex addiction and a belief that one must take extreme measures to stop it.

Oh yeah, how about the rest?

Misogynist terrorism uses mass indiscriminate violence in an attempt to avenge nonconformity with those expectations or to reinforce the perceived superiority of men.

Misogynist terrorism often targets representatives or stand-ins for a type of person that the terrorist feels anger toward

As is typical of terrorism, these acts are intended to cause widespread fear. Any woman may reasonably be unsettled about the potential of being targeted, notes philosopher Kate Manne, because often victims of these killings are treated as essentially interchangeable.

Women are targeted merely because they fit a certain type rather than because they have any particular relationship to the killer.

Instead, misogynist terrorists often express a desire to target women of a particular type, either as revenge for perceived slights

Next?

>I cannot read the rest of your response because greentexting does not work outside of 4chan and there are too many words to sift through here. I will assume you have smugly repeated the same things you did in your other replies, which were sufficiently addressed.

Hey look at that; refusing to engage, refusing to cite material, outright lying about claims, and engaging in bad faith.

Please revert your edits. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've repeatedly engaged in good faith, and each time you post some quote as though it means something else than what it says (as you've done here), for this reason I will not be reverting anything. Cheers. Swinub (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

>I've repeatedly engaged in good faith,

Refusing to engage, lying about what sources say, and then refusing to cite claims is not good faith.

>and each time you post some quote as though it means something else than what it says (as you've done here)

What I've done is demonstrated that you were wrong and you were completely unable top engage with that, and rely on these trite "I won't bother replying". That is very much bad faith. Lostsandwich (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The case for it being misogynist terrorism seems, from what is presented above, very marginal and based on breaking news coverage of the events. Per WP:RSBREAKING this does not help its case. No serious academic or later discussion of this case treats it as misogynist terrorism. I oppose its inclusion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is likely that at some point, a secondary or tertiary source will classify this event as misogynist terrorism. I think it seems reasonable to wait until that happens before including it in the list. Jno.skinner (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)