Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings

[Fishbone Jones]

I think:

No matter the colour, race or religion, the underlying factor in these shootings is mental instability.

Religion, colour and race are all factors that go into their addle brained plans.

No one single group or person holds a lock on evil stupidity. Just this week, while everyone concentrated on the mosque shooting, hundreds of christians were killed by antagonists.

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

What they all lack though is the mental acuity to distinguish rational thought over action.

The vast majority of sane humans inherently know killing another human is wrong, but in some, the brain is not right and they don't distinguish because of what they were taught or how they feel emotionally. They aren't equipped for reasoned thought.

Whether it's white supremacists or islamic terrorists their brain is not strong enough to reason and then hate and frustration take over and all thought, every hour turns to revenge.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything, but every time something happens, we always end up concentrating on the killer's religious or social patterns and stopping there, instead of trying to figure out what part of the brain went wrong. Why do we stop investigating when we get to their social alliances? What they are doing is acting on outside conditioning coupled with weak intellectual skills that don't over ride those teachings.

There may be an opportunity here, because we have a live shooter. Strap him down, cut the head open and see what the fuck is wrong up there. There may be just a small dust bunny that's been getting missed. I don't know. If I did, I'd be somewhere else making too much money to be here.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I don't think that stops a reason for actual, physical and mental testing of those individuals. If we can get them alive.

There is another overriding factor in many of these shootings. They are all gun free zones. Schools, churches, mosques, nightclubs and shopping centres. All areas where the shooter knows nobody will be a threat to them.

Sucks, but maybe it's time to harden some locations.

 

[brihard]

I think:

No matter the colour, race or religion, the underlying factor in these shootings is mental instability.

Religion, colour and race are all factors that go into their addle brained plans.

No one single group or person holds a lock on evil stupidity. Just this week, while everyone concentrated on the mosque shooting, hundreds of christians were killed by antagonists.

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

What they all lack though is the mental acuity to distinguish rational thought over action.

The vast majority of sane humans inherently know killing another human is wrong, but in some, the brain is not right and they don't distinguish because of what they were taught or how they feel emotionally. They aren't equipped for reasoned thought.

Whether it's white supremacists or islamic terrorists their brain is not strong enough to reason and then hate and frustration take over and all thought, every hour turns to revenge.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything, but every time something happens, we always end up concentrating on the killer's religious or social patterns and stopping there, instead of trying to figure out what part of the brain went wrong. Why do we stop investigating when we get to their social alliances? What they are doing is acting on outside conditioning coupled with weak intellectual skills that don't over ride those teachings.

There may be an opportunity here, because we have a live shooter. Strap him down, cut the head open and see what the frig is wrong up there. There may be just a small dust bunny that's been getting missed. I don't know. If I did, I'd be somewhere else making too much money to be here.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I don't think that stops a reason for actual, physical and mental testing of those individuals. If we can get them alive.

There is another overriding factor in many of these shootings. They are all gun free zones. Schools, churches, mosques, nightclubs and shopping centres. All areas where the shooter knows nobody will be a threat to them.

Sucks, but maybe it's time to harden some locations.

I think you're pretty much on track on a lot of that. There are a lot of lonely, angry, disenfranchised and disaffected socioeconomic failures out there. People who have not found success in the economy, in socializing, and in romance. Out of that mass of people who with good reason feel pretty down on themselves, a smaller proportion externalize it and become angry at others. Out of that cohort, some then get to the point of being vengeful. And then still from that much smaller group, a rare few will cross the threshold of actually doing something active about it.

I think that somewhere around 'vengeful/action', two things come into the picture: 'permissiveness', and potentially 'incitement'.

Most people absolutely are brought up to believe that hurting/killing others is wrong. That's a hell of a social conditioning to work past. Part of what we've seen with the rise of social media is that it's so much easier for these individuals to find communities of like minded people- they will be drawn in by finding people that at least think enough of them to not reject their thoughts outright, and then having finally found acceptance, it becomes easy to end up in a spiralling echo chamber of really toxic thinking. The really twisted crap they're thinking gets further defined; they adopt the thoughts and languages of others and identify something on which to focus their grievances; be it 'infidels', or foreigners, or a specific religion or ethnicity- they learn/are taught to blame someone more specific for what's wrong in their life. They're given permission to hate because they have found a community that normalizes hate. And then from there they also find that enough of the community can give permission to harm. For some that will be enough to then self-generate violent action.

And then finally there's the incitement. For anyone who hasn't been to some of these websites - 4chan, 8chan, and other such pages- don't, unless you really want to see humanity at their very worst. It's friggin' gross. You will find people actively encouraging others to do things like this. You'll find people egging each other on, glorifying people like Elliot Rogers or Alexandre Bisonette, or the murderer from New Zealand. They hold these people up as examples to be venerated and emulated. I absolutely believe that in some cases these individuals don't have it within themselves to step over the edge on their own, but that with enough pushing they do it. Maybe in hopes that they'll get held up and venerated the same way.

Radicalized losers, whatever the particular political, ethnic, religious, or ideological stripe. And yet, it would indeed be really interesting to get a few of these cats under an fMRI or PET machine and see if they tick differently.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You only need to look at those in-cel weirdos and their little online social clubs that think not getting laid is a perfectly good reason to kill Stacys, Beckys, and Chads.

 

[brihard]

You only need to look at those in-cel weirdos and their little online social clubs that think not getting laid is a perfectly good reason to kill Stacys, Beckys, and Chads.

Yup. Same shit, different flavour. Losers are still being given an alternative community, and a belief structure they can subscribe to that excuses or mitigates their failings and that justifies acts of retaliation. It's hard to see this as an 'ideology' per se, but for a lot of these people it's the closest thing they've got.

For anyone whp's studied sociology or criminology, basically it's 'differntial association' theory in play, just in a non-conventional criminal context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_association

 

[Remius]

Somebody mentioned social media.  The internet itself has alllowed these types to meet and congregate and share their beliefs.  It may actually be easier to act out when a group supports you and your actions. The internet has given them that.

 

[brihard]

Somebody mentioned social media.  The internet itself has alllowed these types to meet and congregate and share their beliefs.  It may actually be easier to act out when a group supports you and your actions. The internet has given them that.

I think that's almost unquestionable at this point. I don't think anyone who hasn't held their nose and looked at some of these sites could imagine the heinous stuff that is frequent and normal there. If you really, really want to plunge into the worst of humanity, google "8chan /pol" and look at just the first page of posts.  Bring eye bleach. That's normal to these people. That's what's normalizing these attitudes and inciting these behaviours. But it's now possible to live your entire social life in this kind of mindset if that's who you associate with and where you spend your time. That's just one site; there are quite a few like it.

It's frightening and I frankly don't see any practical way to stop it. At a minimum it would be nice to see major search engines 'delisting' hate sites like that, make them harder to stumble upon...

 

[Cloud Cover]

At one point we attempted to engage in active measures (offensive information operations) and conduct DDOS and other attacks on servers hosting and allowing that shit.  But with these people using broader social media, we can hardly attack Facebook. And while it may seem that Facebook and other platforms are fighting the good fight, they are actually arseholes to deal with on criminal matters, same with Google and especially Twitter (Twitter will actually notify the end user that they have received a subpoena or similar court order for that users data).

At the same time, they also will take a bad situation like NZ and be very proactive (sans court order) and make it publicly known what they are doing. It’s all about image and profit.

This is why some governments have floated the internet kill switch, or have rearranged territorial internet to sovereign controlled gateways and filters.

 

[Furniture]

I think that's almost unquestionable at this point. I don't think anyone who hasn't held their nose and looked at some of these sites could imagine the heinous stuff that is frequent and normal there. If you really, really want to plunge into the worst of humanity, google "8chan /pol" and look at just the first page of posts.  Bring eye bleach. That's normal to these people. That's what's normalizing these attitudes and inciting these behaviours. But it's now possible to live your entire social life in this kind of mindset if that's who you associate with and where you spend your time. That's just one site; there are quite a few like it.

It's frightening and I frankly don't see any practical way to stop it. At a minimum it would be nice to see major search engines 'delisting' hate sites like that, make them harder to stumble upon...

You don't have to go that far to see the hate, and garbage being thrown around. There is plenty on social media as well, and being said by otherwise reasonable people.The more we call average people who hold an opinion different from our own "nazis", "snowflakes, "libtards", etc the more we normalize dehumanizing speach. For most of us we realize it's rethoric, and ignore it while we carry on with our lives.  It's not shock that those impressionable people who might not have gone down a dark path can get pointed toward it by the way "normal" people act online. Those "losers" who either have mental health issues, or some other reason they feel like an outsider seem to be drawn further into their chosen camp until, as you said they find an echo chamber.

I considered watching his video or visiting 8chan, but decided I'd not add to their site traffic and fee his "fame".

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.

 

[AbdullahD]

>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.

This post highlights a part of the issue, the idea that being successful is determined (for men) by being tall, dark, with s college or university degree, nice car and a nice house.

A lot of disenfranchised persons have lost sight of the reality that being successful is not a prescription. It is a state of mind.

A lot of people try to get material things, to fix emotional or social problems and it doesnt work so down a dark path they go.

Abdullah

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This post highlights a part of the issue, the idea that being successful is determined (for men) by being tall, dark, with s college or university degree, nice car and a nice house.

A lot of disenfranchised persons have lost sight of the reality that being successful is not a prescription. It is a state of mind.

A lot of people try to get material things, to fix emotional or social problems and it doesnt work so down a dark path they go.

Abdullah

Your last line seems to me to be an eternal truth of the human condition.

I am not sure where this leaves us.

I, too, seem to find myself leaning to the "seek to understand why" mode. After 9-11, I was firmly in the revenge/" visit violence with even more violence" camp. I have come to learn that this was a mistake and only made things worse. Seeking to understand root causes is much more difficult that revenge, but it is the only way forward to find a solution to these violent acts.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm all for punishment, bad acts need correcting, soon as possible. However, someone way smarter than me once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[AbdullahD]

Your last line seems to me to be an eternal truth of the human condition.

I am not sure where this leaves us.

I, too, seem to find myself leaning to the "seek to understand why" mode. After 9-11, I was firmly in the revenge/" visit violence with even more violence" camp. I have come to learn that this was a mistake and only made things worse. Seeking to understand root causes is much more difficult that revenge, but it is the only way forward to find a solution to these violent acts.

I agree addressing the root cause is the solution, but it seems like no two people radicalize in the same way or for the same reasons.

We could address a lot of these issues, which may or may not work. But we may sacrifice liberties to do so.

So the question is, knowing that we are relatively safe in the western world.. do we opt to create more social programs or draft new laws to limit certain freedoms, in order to reduce the chance that we could die from a radicalized persons attack, knowing full well that risk is extremely low anyways?

I do not feel we need to. I think ownership of action is needed, I'm all for freedom of speech.. but some people are not mentally or emotionally capable of dealing with certain statements without negative reactions. I think if we educate the youth and general population that yes, we have all these rights and freedoms here in Canada.. but that does not mean you need to exercise them with everyone. Get to a point were we can just leave a contentious topic alone (unless both sides can handle it in a mature fashion), it's like the old saying don't discuss religion or politics at work or the dinner table. Yet, so many do not follow it anymore.

Having said all this I am far more worried that my beloved children will die from a drug overdose then to be killed by a terrorist act. Which is not very likely and wont happen inshallah. So maybe I do not take this threat serious enough and I think the status quo is ok and minor tweaking is all that's needed.

Abdullah

 

[brihard]

>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.

I'm open to a different term if there's something succinct and accurate. I've used it for a few years now simply because it fits really well. I'm not saying 'losers' in a sneering, unnecessarily perjorative way like you would see one teenager calling another- I'm just not really aware of a word that really fits what I'm saying as precisely as that. 'Disenfranchised' comes closest maybe, but still doesn't feel like it fits.

Aside from that I'm fully in agreement with most of what you said, as well as others in the last few replies.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'm all for punishment, bad acts need correcting, soon as possible. However, someone way smarter than me once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I am also for punishment, in the sense that everyone is responsible for their own actions and must own the consequences of those actions. In certain circumstances, punishment probably includes death. But, they must be punished as individuals- not part of "group punishment" to a particular community, ethnic group or religion.

I have drifted this thread, I think...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

in the West if I say:

White Nationalist it is considered bad and even evil

Indian Nationalist it would be a neutral term to anyone not versed in 20th century Indian history.

Pakistani Nationalist it would be a neutral term to anyone not versed in 20th century Indian/Pakistani history.

I could find some quite distasteful quotes, events and beliefs from the latter two and have people here in the West squirm awkwardly. However they would likely jump up to support me in saying the same about the White Nationalists. I will always prefer the term White Supremacists as it is cleaner and more accurate to that problem. One does not need to be white to be anti-muslim or a Nationalist     

 

[Kat Stevens]

I am also for punishment, in the sense that everyone is responsible for their own actions and must own the consequences of those actions. In certain circumstances, punishment probably includes death. But, they must be punished as individuals- not part of "group punishment" to a particular community, ethnic group or religion.

I have drifted this thread, I think...

I'm all about group punishment when required. Al Qaeda? Burn them all. Boko Haram? Crucify them upside down with their heads in a bucket of liquid shit. Daesh? Remove all trace of them from history.

 

[Furniture]

I'm all about group punishment when required. Al Qaeda? Burn them all. Boko Haram? Crucify them upside down with their heads in a bucket of liquid crap. Daesh? Remove all trace of them from history.

In those instances the individual has chosen to align themselves with the group. It's quite different from believing all people with red hair need to be rounded up and killed because a ginger did something mean to your family 300 years ago.

 

[Kat Stevens]

In those instances the individual has chosen to align themselves with the group. It's quite different from believing all people with red hair need to be rounded up and killed because a ginger did something mean to your family 300 years ago.

"I'm all about group punishment when required." I thought I made that part pretty clear.

 

[AbdullahD]

"I'm all about group punishment when required." I thought I made that part pretty clear.

Wait we talking about them evil Gingers or... lol

Disclaimer: I'm part Scottish and technically a Lord too I'm just joking.. or am I 0.o