“Know Thyself”… My Response to Atomou on the ‘evil madman’, Breivik
G’day Ato… and my apologies for taking so long to get back to this… Anyway, here’s my response to your post:
When I said he’s neither, I really should have said he’s both and neither… What I was really trying to get across is that it is unhelpful to think in such terms because these concepts, as I have already said, do not explain anything about what he did; rather it ‘explains it away’; once we have either of these ‘explanations’, we think we know all that is necessary to know about him and so no longer need to think anymore about him or what he did; most especially we don’t need to look at the social causes of his actions and thus ‘we’ (ie. ‘society’) let ourselves off the hook.
Madness, virtue and evil are all culturally defined, Ato, and they are thus largely a matter of consensus (though this is also to some extent dependent on context); the consensus in this case may well be that he’s mad and evil, but as I’ve said, these concepts actually help the real underlying causes of this kind of phenomenon to disappear and thus are not helpful; indeed in analytical terms, these concepts are counter-productive.
I agree that we mortals are both good and evil; mad and sane and much more… yet this too does not help us understand why people do such things. When I was writing my honors thesis, I had originally intended it to be about mass murder and so I did a lot of reading on that subject before I decided to use more traditional cultures as my ethnography (I’d changed tutors and my new tutor was more into ‘traditional’ (ie. ‘tribal’) societies than modern ones and I thought it a good move to try to please him. However, from the reading I did prior to this, I discovered that there is a very strong connection between a history of childhood abuse and mass murder; most, if not all mass murderers had a history of the most appalling kinds of abuse during their childhoods and adolescences… It would therefore seem to me to be imperative that we study this connection between abuse and murder (especially mass-murder).
I also understand the difficulty, not to say the near-impossibility, of maintaining high ethical standards, but don’t see what relevance this problem has to the matter under discussion: ethics are also relative to the social groups which respectively hold them… to the group of followers (if he really had any) or to the so-called ‘knights templar’ (small letters to denote that they’re not the original ones!) it could well be that they think such actions are ethically justified (fighting the good fight against the ‘common enemy’, and so forth). Racists with a taste for violence might well agree with this proposition… (no, I don’t!)
I feel the same way about the death sentence as you do, ato, and I understand, too, that I may well feel just as moved to violence had I been the father of any of the victims, male or female… and I really don’t know what I might do in such a circumstance; yet, as I’ve also said elsewhere, perhaps this is the real test of our humanity: whether or not in such circumstances, we revert to the most ancient of all laws, the Law of Revenge, the logical operation of which destroyed the House of Atreus so thoroughly… and inevitably; or if we allow legal processes which have been specifically designed to render the ‘Law of Revenge’ redundant and render society livable! It is not insignificant that the stories we both love so much about the evolution of social laws and ethics took place in an historical period in which living in cities was a relatively new phenomenon; the development of laws follows the development of cities… Just imagine what it would be like living in a city like modern Rome or Athens or London or New York if the sole form of ‘justice’ was personal revenge… Happy places, do you think?
Perhaps it’s also unhelpful to blame the gods or fate, too, ato… especially since we tend to make both of these ourselves… What you are obliquely suggesting is that ‘anyone of us’ could possibly have done such a thing… given the right circumstances… Now, while I don’t entirely disagree with this proposition, it should also be pointed out that most of us don’t! And we must ask why not… the answer of course, lies in the ‘circumstances’, which led to Breivik doing what he did; and these ‘circumstances’, if we are to be thorough in our analysis, must include a survey of the whole process of socialisation which Breivik experienced… including the ‘normal’ socialisation processes for Norway and whether or not there was any significant differences or aberrations in Breivik’s socialisation. Needless to say, this means that we must also look very closely at his personal epistemology.
I don’t think your metaphor regarding Philoktetes works at all in this situation either; his injury was most definitely not socially caused (snakes are not part of human society). And the poison of a snake, though it may make a metaphor for a poisoned mind, is qualitatively different from the latter kind of poison, simply because the latter most certainly is a social phenomenon. If we allow ourselves to assume that gods are real and actually interact with humans, then in answer to your question about Hera punishing Philoktetes for being Herakles’ friend, of course it is a social phenomenon, ato; how could it be otherwise?
The same is true of your other examples of the mother who beat her son to death and the father who threw his daughter off the bridge and even the Indonesian abbatoirs; these are all social phenomena, like it or not… Whether we allow free reign to our ‘darker angels’, or bow to the normal (social) judicial processes is perhaps determined by the relative success of our ‘process of socialization’… you see, most of us don’t do such things, regardless of how frustrated we might become…
“Our deeds vary so much and they vary from circumstance to circumstance, not from man to man, from woman to woman, so that to use any appellation on them, on these different and varying deeds, appellations that narrow, particularly in a dogmatic sense, the breadth and depth of its source is to do an injustice to the complexity of our character.”
Now, it’s funny you should say this, because it is precisely because the concepts of ‘madness’ and ‘evil’ narrow, in a most dogmatic sense, the ‘breadth and depth of its (ie. the act of mass-murder’s) source’ and thus does an injustice not only to the ‘complexity of our character’, but to the whole of society insofar as it does nothing to solve the problem and prevent further attacks in future; and even if some hatred is ‘justified’ (Ghandi would most certainly disagree…) acting on that hatred may not be… unless we act in a ‘justified’ fashion according to the laws and use legal processes to obtain ‘justice’ for ourselves, however that is defined.
I must say that I sympathize with Kazantzakis, but fail to see its relevance here except, perhaps, as a form of wishful thinking… a desire for a state in which such things simply could not happen. As for Freddy Nietzsche… this social-darwinist, who called himself a philosopher, was not a sociologist or anthropologist, and even before his so-called ‘philosophies’ became the inspiration for Adolf Hitler, they were severely critiqued (I found some interesting critiques dated 1932…) As I’ve already mentioned, his ‘struggle of all against all’, not only ignores the ‘cooperation’ side of human nature and over-emphasises the ‘competition’ side… and if properly applied would inevitably lead to either anarchy, or the kind of insane power struggle which Hitler found himself engaged in. It’s a pity he’s still so popular… but popularity is not necessarily a reflection of merit!
Your highly emotional descriptions of what it is to be a human being, though interesting and highly poetic, are less than useful for our analysis, I’m afraid, for that very reason; because they are so highly emotional. That you should mention the quote from above the doorway of the Delphic Oracle is quite ironic, because the form of analysis I advocate (ie. ‘social analysis’) which derives from the science of anthropology (yes, I know it’s an ‘arts’ degree; but one of my tutors was highly insistent that it was most definitely a science! And as you know these concepts are only artificially separated for the sake of intellectual convenience of characterization) is indeed all about ‘knowing thyself’… I’m sure I needn’t explain to you the origin of the word ‘anthropology’, but for the sake of any non-Greek speakers who may read this, it derives from two words, ‘anthropos’ (Man) and ‘logos’ (in this case meaning ‘study’ or ‘science’ of…) And it does so much more thoroughly and more appropriately than the pseudo-science of ‘psychology’, simply because this latter (as I’ve already indicated) has only relatively recently begun to recognize the social origins of (non-physical) mental aberrations.
Sadly, I must admit that I haven’t the slightest notion as to how one might ‘fix these problems’… first one would have to do the appropriate studies… although I have at least attempted to indicate where such studies might begin, and indeed, I have, I sincerely believe, made a significant contribution towards any such studies with my book, Aesthetics of Violence, which outlines a paradigm for understanding violence as a form of human self-expression. It’s a pity that it is unlikely to be accepted academically, however, as a result, ironically, of my own scapegoating by the members of the department I was working in…
I do agree, however that the best one can do is to work on oneself, since one cannot change the world… though I find your final reference to Cain and Abel somewhat puzzling: if we are ‘our brother’s keepers’ does it not make it incumbent upon us all to first of all understand our ‘brother’, before we go making his decisions for him? And how will we do this without social analysis?
Such as it is, m’lud, I rest my case…
😉
Window Dresser's Arms, Pig & Whistle 
My short take. Anyone, but this guy in particular, who is an empathy free zone person is capable of doing dreadful things. In his case, he is educated and reads and thinks about particular things and he focused on the ethnic/cultural mix of his country. He decided he did not like it and set about a plan to ‘fix’ things. The government was to blame and ridding the country of its young labour people seemed a good idea. He then put his plan into action and blew up govt buildings and ‘took out’ its future, its bright young people. That made him pleased. He’d done a good job. There are other empathy free zone people among us all the time but they focus on other things – in Albury we have a horse mutilator, someone who gets out late at night and strangles horses’ penises causing horrible injury and pain – the horses are on agistment, not in someone’s backyard so to speak. This has happened on and off over ten years and the person is still on the loose. I think these people are usually loners, generally not social mixers or family minded.
LikeLike
Viv, I agree that most times these people are loners and usually also have a problematic relationship with at least one of the parents. He seems to have distant father, I have not seen any comments by the mother.
LikeLike
Some other points of note – they don’t love and they don’t cry. This would have probably become evident by the age of three, four or five. False love and a tantrum at best.
LikeLike
People who routinely torture animals sometimes mature into full blown serial killers. It’s one of the few things serial killers share in common.
LikeLike
And such people have routinely been abused themselves, Warrigal… it’s one of the things psychs regard as symptomatic of child abuse…
🙂
LikeLike
With respect to individual motivation. You’ve stated that it has a social dimension. I think that means you think it also has a non-social dimension. I do admit to a vague curiosity about what its non-social dimension might be, given that you’ve already said it is not biological.
LikeLike
Frankly Voice, the more I try to allow for ‘nonsocial’ causal factors’ (for the sake of leaving that possibility open) the more I find myself discovering that in fact there are none… so you must be happy that finally I’ve said it: the causes of mass murder are all social; the individual just becomes the locus for their expression… There… happy now?
If, as seems evident, you think there are non social causes, perhaps you might be so good as to enlighten me.
😐
LikeLike
Oh you ratbag! 🙂 After bawling me out! I could have stopped at version 3!
I dunno, asty. The nature vs nurture debate is an old one, and it’s been much studied over many years. Off the top of my head they’ve done analyses of the lives and behaviour of adult identical twins separated close to or at birth You no doubt know that the consensus of opinion is that nature plays a strong part. Since you’re very interested in it, you no doubt know where to find the results of the psychological studies by experts. I can’t top them and that’s as it should be.
Most parents will tell you that their children were born with different natures, and that was particularly obvious to me with twins that I treated identically when they were babies but who behaved noticeably differently. Apart from anything else, one was an early-riser, and the other a late sleeper. Bother them.
LikeLike
Yes, I’m well aware of the nature/nurture debate, Voice, and that’s why I was trying to leave open some room for it… but although I’m aware that kids, even twins, can be born with very different natures, I still find it difficult, not to say impossible, to believe that anyone is actually born ‘evil’, but it is a relatively easy matter to make someone evil… and madness is most certainly a social construct; if you’d like to read a bit about the nature of this social construction, I’d recommend reading Michel Foucault’s “Madness and Civilization”. Jonathan Scull, I remember also had some very interesting things to say on the subject, as did Thomas Szasz…(I think that’s how he spells his surname!)
I think I had much better answers to these matters when I was actually in the process of studying for my honors degree, but that was such a loooooooooooooooooooooong time ago now…
Anecdotally, I remember that my own brother, Trevor, was always the complete opposite of myself; where I was placid, docile, obedient, and would you believe, religious, Trevor seemed to have an instinct for apostacy and heresy (which I came to only during my teens; we had some wonderful debates as we grew up…) as well as for violence which was quite foreign to me… He loved a fight, though I think he learned later in his life that violence is not a reliable methodology because there was always someone better, stronger, and faster… Even so, I doubt that even at his worst, he could ever even contemplate such a thing as mass murder and for all his faults I find it impossible to think of him as ‘evil’…
Mad? Well he was diagnosed as a psychopath and schizophrenic, but these I think are simply labels, which, once applied, make it virtually impossible to be or act in any different fashion, simply because once a label is applied, all people ever see is the label; the full complexity of the individual is lost… and in the frustration to avoid ‘wearing’ the label, often once one realizes that whatever one does, it will only ever be seen through the prism of that label, the only thing to do is to give people what they expect… Thus in the application of labels, we can easily actually create in individuals, those antisocial traits we most fear; or at least, amplify those antisocial traits which are already there to the point where they take over the individual’s whole personality… Perhaps this is the manner in which we create monsters…?
It is thus impossible to separate the ‘nature’ from the ‘nurture’; or even to evaluate the relative proportions of the contributions of either to the makeup of the individual…
Shall we call it a truce?
🙂
LikeLike
This business of Society being wholly responsible for bad deeds: I sure hope your neighbours are nice!
LikeLike
That’s right Voice… twist my words into something that I never said… And you talk to me about ‘strawman’ arguments! I must say you’re a dab hand at ’em yourself!
The individual is socially constructed; therefore society does bear some responsibility; but the individual also had free agency and must also bear their part… Elsewhere I’ve said quite unequivocally that Breivik deserves to get the maximum punishment that Norwegian law allows for such crimes… so I’m obviously saying he’s also (and indeed, largely) repsonsible.
But that doesn’t excuse ‘society’ at all; neither does it mean we shouldn’t try to understand the social causes in order to find a remedy and hopefully prevent such slaughters from occurring in the future…
🙂
LikeLike
I meant wholly responsible in the sense of being the sole cause, not in the sense of being legally responsible … [Repeat neighbours comment here]
LikeLike
Where did I say it was the ‘sole cause’, Voice?
Indeed, to the best of my knowledge I’ve always used the plural, ’causes’…
Breivik’s part in this is that he’s obviously got some very radical (not to say ‘crazy’) interpretations of common ideologies, and a total lack of empathy as well as a very extreme political worldview… but where do these come from? Who taught him such twisted ideologies and who mistreated him to the extent that any natural empathy he may have had has been so thoroughly suppressed. And how did they get so twisted in his mind? Oh, that’s right… he’s just ‘evil’ and ‘mad’… that explains it all doesn’t it… Now we can forget about him… until we read about the next massacre over our cornflakes… Wonderful!
😉
LikeLike
This business of all bad deeds having only social causes: I sure hope your neighbours are nice! And the local shop keepers as well.
LikeLike
For the third time in this thread, Voice, let me reiterate, I NEVER said ‘all bad deeds have ONLY social causes (or maybe you can show me where I did?); this is YOUR strawman; I merely said that they DO have social causes, quite apart from any individual motivations… and that it is important that we understand them unless we want more repeats of this kind of event…
Whether you like it or not, the individual is socially constructed; and this means that monsters like Breivik are also socially constructed… Sure he has a mind of his own (such as it is), and makes his own decisions (appalling though some of them evidently are), but even so, we need to ask what went wrong in the process of his socialisation that twisted his thinking so badly; and what happened to him to make him so devoid of empathy?
I’d also like to know what it is exactly that you’re implying by saying that you hope all my neighbours are nice… And what do shopkeepers have to do with any of this? Was Breivik a shopkeeper?
I’m surprised, Voice of Reason; even though I may not always agree with you, your arguments are usually so much better thought out than this; and I must observe that is most unlike you to use, let alone repeatedly insist upon, such strawman arguments… You’re usually much more rational than this…
😐
LikeLike
I beg your pardon asty; I wasn’t aware we were having an argument. I thought the problem the first time was that I hadn’t made it clear which meaning of responsibility I intended, and the problem the second time was that I had used the singular of cause instead of the plural. I had thought that I’d made the appropriate corrections.
So you do think that there are some biological cause(s) as well? I hadn’t realised that.
LikeLike
Where did I say anything about biological causes, Voice? Other than to say that it is incorrect to blame genetics because this would be a ‘biological determinist’ argument which ignores social causes? (And that’s the sense I used the word ‘argument’ before; perhaps I should have used ‘discussion’)
Of course, this refusal of biological causes doesn’t include brain damage, as I concede quite readily that such damage can change personalities… But Breivik, I must say, doesn’t exactly look typical of a ‘brain injury’ case to me (though I’m not an expert and admit I could be wrong about this… And brain damage was not a significant factor in the cases of mass murder I studied during my honors years either… A history of profound abuse, however, WAS! Do you think there may be a connection?
🙂
LikeLike
Um … let’s get this straight.
You said above “I NEVER said ‘all bad deeds have ONLY social causes'”. I kind of took that to mean that you think they have other causes in addition to social causes. Is brain damage the only exception to the rule that all bad deeds have only social causes? Or if you believe there are additional causes, and they aren’t biological, what are they?
LikeLike
Voice, I’ve also recognised the individual’s motivations as being ’causes’… or, more accurately, ‘causal factors’ (as are social ’causes’; causal factors is perhaps a more accurate phrase…); this doesn’t necessarily imply biological factors, though if it did they would be ‘causal factors’ only and not ‘ultimate determinative causes’… and of course, individual motivations, eg. ‘revenge’, or ‘politics’, or even ‘ideals’ also and inevitably have a social dimension…
I suppose one way of explaining what I mean would be to refer to Max Weber’s notion of the difference between ’causes’ (in the sense of being ‘underlying causes’) and ‘triggers’, which are the events which ‘trigger’ individual actions… thus the causes of WWI were many, various and SOCIAL, whereas the ‘trigger’ event was the murder of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria… Put quite succinctly, causality is not linear…
As you seem to be upset that bad deeds have social causes, perhaps it’ll cheer you up to realise that so do good deeds… If bad people are socially constructed, so are good ones… But you seem to be suggesting that society has no effect whatsoever on the makeup of the individual psyche, but this is clearly incorrect… where do ideals come from? And ‘mistaken’ ideals also?
And, why is it that, in spite of my having pointed out three times already that I never said or intended to imply that ‘all bad deeds have only social causes’, you still come back with the same phrase when you ask about brain damage being the only exception? (Did I say it was the only exception? I don’t know everything; nor do I claim to; perhaps there are others… I just can’t think of them immediately, but am prepared to admit the possibility of their existence).
In answer to your question about non-biological causes, I’ve already given the example of ‘individual motivations’, in recognition of the individual’s ‘free’ agency; whatever the process of socialization does by way of forming individual psyches, it is still ultimately the decision of an individual to do these things… So even though these ‘individual motivations’ have a social dimension, emerging as they do within the context of a particular individual’s response to their socialization… (sometimes, it seems, ‘socialization’ doesn’t ‘take’…) the decision is still that of the individual. I’m not saying ‘society makes people do such things’; merely that ‘society shapes the psyches of the individuals who choose to do such things’…
Now, as an exercise, if you think these types of events have causes which are NOT social, or which have absolutely NO social dimension, please tell me what you think they are, and I’ll show you their social dimension too… Just about EVERYTHING that people do, Voice, has a social dimension because after all, human beings are, first and foremost, SOCIAL creatures!
What is it about the fact that mass murder has a ‘social dimension’ or ‘social causes’ that upsets you so much? The very fact that they are MASS murders is itself a social dimension… and even single murders of single individuals is a social act. (Granted murders whether single or ‘en masse’ are usually referred to as ‘anti-social’ acts, yet this ‘anti-social act can only occur within a ‘social dimension’… therefore it is a ‘social’ act in this sense.)
Perhaps you can suggest to me something, ANYTHING, that human beings do which has no social dimension?
🙂
LikeLike
Not sure how you got the idea I was upset.
Now. After successive modifications, I’ve come up with the final version of my comment that incorporates all your corrections to date. I realise it is unlikely to be flawless, but you’ll just have to live with it.
Drum roll … Da da …
This business of all bad deeds for non brain-damaged people having only social causes (with the exception of individual motivations, which themselves have a social dimension): I sure hope your neighbours are nice!
LikeLike
Hudson, I hand you the floor.
LikeLike
Goodness, asty!
I feel humbled by the effort you’ve put into your response. Just came to it now and had a quick look. Shall read much more carefully when it gets a bit quieter around here… NOT LOOKING AT ANYONE YOUNG LADY!
Bear with me, mate! Or bare all!
🙂
LikeLike
I hope that last directive wasn’t directed at me, ato… I’m shy!
😉
LikeLike
I was humbled too, ato, at the length of the article you wrote in response to a few simple comments…
😉
LikeLike
Sometimes, AStyages, it is better to go with simple.
You know like the farmer, who lifted the bull’s balls, to see the village clock.
He is a ‘lunatic on the ground’ (not Syd, of course) and should be dealt with as such.
I note that in Norway, one of the adjudicatorsa has stated that as he has been planning this for a long time, it does not fit with ‘Their’ definition of insane.
So I guess he’ll get their maximum. Whatever it is. I don’t know whether they have corporal punishment or not.
LikeLike
I think he deserves the maximum, VL, regardless of what his reasons were… Don’t you?
But even so, as I’ve just said to Hung, if we don’t try to understand what causes this type of event, we’re never going to put an end to them; most especially because the media (and of course, their audiences) actually lap them up…
🙂
LikeLike
Let someone else try.Someone with inexhaustible government funds.
What are we gonna do when we think we’ve found out? If it’s a gene,do we shoot them at birth?
LikeLike
The social production of the individual is NOT genetic, VL… That argument, which is known as ‘biological determinism’, is incorrect simply because it IS a ‘deterministic’ argument… ie. an argument which attempts to reduce complex social phenomena to a single cause… in this case, a ‘gene’…
😉
LikeLike
VL: You are the weakest link. Goodbye!
LikeLike
I may have disguised what I meant to say.
You should first of all, try and earn an incredible amount of money.
Once you have done that–and are financially secure–you can then set off on a path of discovery, T2.
Bloggers can’t help you.
Failing that leave it to the government funded laboratories; there are zillions of them–In every country. They will find the answer before you do.
I know that you have been dealt some misfortune, but you shouldn’t let that consume you.
Of course one’s surroundings influence and indoctrinate one. Take Muslims, who follow a book that is rammed (metaphorically) down their throats. Take children born in Glasgow; Mexico City; Lagos; Sao poalo or Aden: surely they are hampered by their surroundings and social contacts/surroundings. We all know that.
The trick is to stop socialism, so that the rest of the world can have a better life. You know like Scandinavia, North America, Europe and Australia 🙂
You are looking for something that you won’t find in here, especially from me. I’m just an old has been Pom, with a penchant for cooking and ribaldry!
LikeLike
You missed my Pink Floyd allusion.
LikeLike
Apologies for taking so long to get round to responding to your comment VL; I’m afraid Voice’s quite penetrating inquisition kept me very busy… (not a complaint, Voice; I thank you for it; for forcing me to think and making me remember some of the things I’d forgotten…)
And I thank you too, Vectis Lad, for your sympathetic advice, however I don’t think it will do any good:
Those ‘government laboratories’ you speak of will find nothing, ever, about this particular topic, because they’re not even looking; nor will they ever look, since governments themselves are the principle and greatest users of scapegoats… To study this problem is to shine a light into areas they would much rather keep in darkness.
And if your allusion to ‘The Lunatic is on the Grass’ is intended to suggest that Breivik was a drug-user, and that this explains his actions, I must say that he certainly hides it well… those clear eyes and that perfect skin don’t look to me as if he’s done much in the way of tripping the light psychedelic to me… Again, it’s too simple, and too deterministic an explanation, which maligns drug users unnecessarily; indeed it makes scapegoats of them; this argument reveals a search not for a reason, but for an excuse to dismiss the subject.
We won’t find that a gene is the ‘ultimate cause’, because even though I’m prepared to admit that genetics may play a part, it is a relatively small part; a gene may perhaps determine certain predispositions, such as, for example, a taste for excitement, or even a taste for violence… but it is in the process of socialisation that we see those predispositions amplified beyond any ‘natural’ inclinations. As I’ve said, children are not ‘born evil’; they may, however, be made that way. (And in answer to your question about ‘what if it is a gene, do we shoot those with such a gene at birth?’, can you not see the social process of scapegoating even in this ‘remedy’?)
Of course, such intellectual territory as this has always belonged to the philosopher, rather than the politician or diplomat; it seems to me as if my own search for some kind of meaning to the ‘misfortunes’ I have experienced, has led me to ask these questions and I can no more refrain from asking them than I can fly, since they are engraved on my soul; they are part of my very being and relate to something so fundamental in my existence that I cannot help but try to understand their nature and try to find the causes of all those abuses I’ve suffered. Reflection on the countless times I’ve been made a scapegoat of for the convenience of others has made the connection between violence and the practice of scapegoating self-evident to me.
Maybe one day people will undersrtand what I’m trying to say, but at present, their instincts would appear to be even to deny the validity of the question; a scapegoat is not supposed to have a voice with which to denounce his tormentors… And I think it was Oscar Wilde, wasn’t it, who said that ‘Anyone who is truly ‘ahead of his time’ will either be thought to be insane, or else will be totally ignored’… The world, it seems, is not ready to do without its scapegoats just yet… Maybe it never will be, but at least I have some answers to my personal questions; some understanding of their ‘meaning’, even if there’s still nothing I can do about them personally… To quote a famous Australian, “Such is life…”
😉
LikeLike
I think you are both over complicating the issue. He’s a nut job, put him down.
LikeLike
….Or send him up.
LikeLike
Once he’s safely incarcerated, Clinton, I agree that ‘sending him up’ is one of the best ways to rid our society of such monsters…
The media actually empower such individuals by giving them the publicity they seek for their purposes (whatever they are) and this media reaction, with its accompanying subconsious (and sometimes not so unconscious) message to ‘be afraid; be VERY afraid’ is so predictable it is undoubtedly relied upon by terrorists.
If we want to minimize the number of such incidents, eportage of such events should be minimal, rather than given the same level of reportage of as a royal wedding or something but the media know that the public just loves these stories of mass slaughters and so splash them all over the front page and maintain the fear they thus generate for as long as they can; the terrorists couldn’t ask for more help from them!
But if we lampoon them, we rob them of much of their power, which is simply the power to induce fear in order to get society to behave in a particular way… it gives them a sort of ‘fame’ nobody wants… And we do… But no-one, not even terrorists, wants to be famous for being an idiot.
🙂
LikeLike
Sure, Hung… whatever we do let’s not try to find out what causes these events, ’cause if we do we may just find a way to minimize the number of such events, or even prevent them… and then what would we read over our cornflakes?
🙂
LikeLike