5 ms·

One need not be "disturbed" to carry out horrific acts of violence. Would you describe a fanatical terrorist (ISIS, Skinhead, whatever) as disturbed? Writing of

by 67726e 11y ago

One need not be "disturbed" to carry out horrific acts of violence. Would you describe a fanatical terrorist (ISIS, Skinhead, whatever) as disturbed? Writing off anyone who decides to murder as "disturbed" is ignoring a whole swathe of folks. The US has easy access to firearms, and we glorify violence. There are many reasons why one will kill, and just saying "Oh, he's fucked in the head" is just another way of shifting focus from other problems.

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
Or a drone pilot, for that matter. Desensitisation to violence, or writing off the victims as something less than human, allows anyone to be a mass killer without being conventionally disturbed.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  That would depend on what your definition of "conventionally disturbed" is. Most modern diagnostic psychology is based upon deviations from some kind of norm (it's greatest weakness, because then you have to define the "norm", not easy to do objectively) ..but it doesn't change the fact that most people would find the idea of picking up a weapon and killing random innocent people to be completely abhorrent. Given that definition, yes, I could see how "disturbed" or "mentally ill" fits. Having the mindset that committing mass murder is okay or justifiable is an aberrant thought pattern. Full stop, end of story. Address that pattern, and you address the root of the problem. I find the idea that "desensitiation to violence" is at all meaningful to be spurious at best. More tractable types believe the media narrative about, say, Columbine being caused by the shooters being avid fans of the FPS game Doom, but study after study can't find a link between games and real life violence. There's also proof by inversion - the USA is famously inverse of the rest of the world, puritanical when it comes to sex, okay with violence. Therefore, you'd expect if the desensitization idea held any water, that the rest of the civilized world has a bigger problem than the USA with sexually-based crimes. I haven't seen evidence to that effect.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    > most people would find the idea of picking up a weapon and killing random innocent people to be completely abhorrent. Killing random guilty people, on the other hand, is completely legitimised in the USA. Self-defence advocates talk about it all the time. So all that has to happen is for someone to manufacture a justification for the victim(s) deserving it and it becomes legitimate in their eyes. That's how lynching used to happen; entire communities would turn out to murder some people simply because they were black.
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    I wasn't talking about games being the desensitising factor. I'm an avid player of games myself, many of them very violent. More about a climate where mass killing is more visible and has less repercussions or damnation - e.g. war. US has been in more wars as the aggressor than any other country I'd guess, over the past couple of generations. Perhaps that mass death and resulting inpunity for people at the top contributes to these teenagers' lack of appreciation of the horror in their actions? I agree 'conventionally disturbed' is a silly term. Hard to find one better; maybe, 'absent of any identifiable mental disorder that would likely explain their murderous actions'?
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  you've got the wrong idea about drone pilots. people who do it do NOT see it as a video game. they follow orders, some they'd rather not, but if not for duty.
monochromatic 11y ago
> easy access to firearms > glorify violence > shifting focus from other problems Blaming guns, violent video games, violent movies, etc. is just another example of shifting focus from the real problem.
- 67726e 11y ago
  So what is the problem? You don't think if we had a culture more averse to violence and less access to firearms shootings would drop? I'm a firearm owner, but I'm not so blinded by politics to make the connection that little Johnny isn't gonna shoot up his class if he can't sneak the gun out of his dad's closet. I'm also not making the case that violent video games cause violence, but that we're so casual about it in our society that folks become a bit more willing to do harm. Some folks hear voices in their head, some folks are just filled with hatred for their fellow man. Writing everyone who has committed a crime of that degree off as crazy does neither the mentally ill nor our ability to understand them any good.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    If some asshole intent on mass murder can't get his hands on a gun, he can just drive his car into a crowd and do as much damage.
    - chmaynard 11y ago
      Brilliant reasoning. Let's forget about drivers licenses and car registration, too. Any why bother securing our homes? Anyone intent on breaking in can just pick the locks.
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        Everybody (to within experimental error) has a drivers license.

by 67726e 11y ago

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago

Or a drone pilot, for that matter. Desensitisation to violence, or writing off the victims as something less than human, allows anyone to be a mass killer without being conventionally disturbed.

Karunamon 11y ago
That would depend on what your definition of "conventionally disturbed" is. Most modern diagnostic psychology is based upon deviations from some kind of norm (it's greatest weakness, because then you have to define the "norm", not easy to do objectively) ..but it doesn't change the fact that most people would find the idea of picking up a weapon and killing random innocent people to be completely abhorrent. Given that definition, yes, I could see how "disturbed" or "mentally ill" fits. Having the mindset that committing mass murder is okay or justifiable is an aberrant thought pattern. Full stop, end of story. Address that pattern, and you address the root of the problem. I find the idea that "desensitiation to violence" is at all meaningful to be spurious at best. More tractable types believe the media narrative about, say, Columbine being caused by the shooters being avid fans of the FPS game Doom, but study after study can't find a link between games and real life violence. There's also proof by inversion - the USA is famously inverse of the rest of the world, puritanical when it comes to sex, okay with violence. Therefore, you'd expect if the desensitization idea held any water, that the rest of the civilized world has a bigger problem than the USA with sexually-based crimes. I haven't seen evidence to that effect.
- pjc50 11y ago
  > most people would find the idea of picking up a weapon and killing random innocent people to be completely abhorrent. Killing random guilty people, on the other hand, is completely legitimised in the USA. Self-defence advocates talk about it all the time. So all that has to happen is for someone to manufacture a justification for the victim(s) deserving it and it becomes legitimate in their eyes. That's how lynching used to happen; entire communities would turn out to murder some people simply because they were black.
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  I wasn't talking about games being the desensitising factor. I'm an avid player of games myself, many of them very violent. More about a climate where mass killing is more visible and has less repercussions or damnation - e.g. war. US has been in more wars as the aggressor than any other country I'd guess, over the past couple of generations. Perhaps that mass death and resulting inpunity for people at the top contributes to these teenagers' lack of appreciation of the horror in their actions? I agree 'conventionally disturbed' is a silly term. Hard to find one better; maybe, 'absent of any identifiable mental disorder that would likely explain their murderous actions'?
michaelbuddy 11y ago
you've got the wrong idea about drone pilots. people who do it do NOT see it as a video game. they follow orders, some they'd rather not, but if not for duty.

monochromatic 11y ago

> easy access to firearms > glorify violence > shifting focus from other problems Blaming guns, violent video games, violent movies, etc. is just another example of shifting focus from the real problem.

67726e 11y ago
So what is the problem? You don't think if we had a culture more averse to violence and less access to firearms shootings would drop? I'm a firearm owner, but I'm not so blinded by politics to make the connection that little Johnny isn't gonna shoot up his class if he can't sneak the gun out of his dad's closet. I'm also not making the case that violent video games cause violence, but that we're so casual about it in our society that folks become a bit more willing to do harm. Some folks hear voices in their head, some folks are just filled with hatred for their fellow man. Writing everyone who has committed a crime of that degree off as crazy does neither the mentally ill nor our ability to understand them any good.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  If some asshole intent on mass murder can't get his hands on a gun, he can just drive his car into a crowd and do as much damage.
  - chmaynard 11y ago
    Brilliant reasoning. Let's forget about drivers licenses and car registration, too. Any why bother securing our homes? Anyone intent on breaking in can just pick the locks.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Everybody (to within experimental error) has a drivers license.