4 ms·

Whenever something like this happens, people like to dismiss the situation by saying we can't possibly understand "crazy" people. It avoids having to consider t

Whenever something like this happens, people like to dismiss the situation by saying we can't possibly understand "crazy" people. It avoids having to consider the systemic reasons why something like this can happen. I'd imagine a significant part of it is that we live a society where some people can have their livelihood yanked away from them, with no support structure to help them, leaving them desperate and angry.

meri_dian 9y ago
Yes, and the crazy people are the ones who, when desperate and angry, try to kill 3 innocent people and then themselves. I don't understand the equivocation here. It seems a symptom of the broad inability in modern social thinking to pin any responsibility on individuals. While this stems from our desire to root out systematic issues, which is necessary and important, it should not be the only thing we care about. In fact, a culture of individual responsibility actually can become a deep feature of our society if we take the time to engender it. Talking about individual responsibility is not ignoring the systematic issues in society, because a lack of focus on individual responsibility is actually rooted in our culture and hence is a systemic issue in itself.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  I would argue the opposite. We already have an intense culture of "individual responsibility" in many areas of society, and that's exactly the problem. Because a culture that seeks to blame individuals for problems makes individuals extremely reluctant to actually accept responsibility for their decisions. Consider how the airline industry investigates after a disaster: They investigate the circumstances leading to each bad decision, and then attempt to change the process such that it cannot happen again. This leads to individuals being forthcoming about their mistakes, and implements changes that actually solve the problem. This culture of focusing on systemic issues rather than individuals has made air travel extremely safe.
- where_do_i_live 9y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but no one is dead outside of the shooter currently. You might want to take some of your individual responsibility and correct your statement.
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Changed it, though "trying to kill 3 people" rather than "killed 3 people" are morally equivalent.
- jimmies 9y ago
  >Yes, and the crazy people are the ones who, when desperate and angry, try to kill 3 innocent people and then themselves. That was crazy, but maybe not all parts of that machine were broken. If I genuinely had millions of views on my videos that gave me an income and was suddenly cut off, I would have felt being very wrongly treated as well.
watwut 9y ago
Absolutely it makes sense. "That person shoot out random youtube employees therefore youtube should change its helpdesk" argument does not make sense. It makes as much sense as caving to any other form of terrorism. Youtube and its employees are the victim here. Using this to put pressure on them in the "for the safety of your employees" way is incredibly distasteful.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Youtube and its employees are the victim here. No. The employees are the victim. Youtube? Not at all, save for a day of missed work. Them cutting off a person off their income without any way of appeal caused the whole chain of events in the first place.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Jess christ, I can't believe people here argue that with the straight face. Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same? He shot the school therefore school caused it by not giving him everything he wanted? Seriously. By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.
    - mschuster91 9y ago
      > Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same? Of course not. But there is, more often than not, a common background between all these cases. Recognize and fix the system and prevent more suffering. Shootings are the ultimate outlet, so if you fix the system you automatically prevent loads of more suffering. > By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting. Yes (except for the rare case where an immediate firing is warranted, such as stealing from the employer, sexual harrassment or similar). There is no obligation to exercise the "fired on the spot". You can as a boss always behave like a decent human being and show your employees at least a fucking basic level of respect. Or you can decide "uh we dont need XYZ any more, even if he's still productive, has worked years of overtime, shown dedication and has to support a family but if I fire him I can make 10k personal bonus that year"... but then I would not be surprised if you'd end up at the wrong end of a baseball bat or worse. By the way I would advise you to read up on how most of the workers' rights we know today in civilized areas of the planet (right to unionize, strike, illegality of "at will employment", social security systems) have been achieved: through shitloads of blood. If your state still has legal "at will employment", the state is responsible for any avoidable suffering caused by this.

meri_dian 9y ago

Yes, and the crazy people are the ones who, when desperate and angry, try to kill 3 innocent people and then themselves. I don't understand the equivocation here. It seems a symptom of the broad inability in modern social thinking to pin any responsibility on individuals. While this stems from our desire to root out systematic issues, which is necessary and important, it should not be the only thing we care about. In fact, a culture of individual responsibility actually can become a deep feature of our society if we take the time to engender it. Talking about individual responsibility is not ignoring the systematic issues in society, because a lack of focus on individual responsibility is actually rooted in our culture and hence is a systemic issue in itself.

aninhumer 9y ago
I would argue the opposite. We already have an intense culture of "individual responsibility" in many areas of society, and that's exactly the problem. Because a culture that seeks to blame individuals for problems makes individuals extremely reluctant to actually accept responsibility for their decisions. Consider how the airline industry investigates after a disaster: They investigate the circumstances leading to each bad decision, and then attempt to change the process such that it cannot happen again. This leads to individuals being forthcoming about their mistakes, and implements changes that actually solve the problem. This culture of focusing on systemic issues rather than individuals has made air travel extremely safe.
where_do_i_live 9y ago
Hate to break it to you, but no one is dead outside of the shooter currently. You might want to take some of your individual responsibility and correct your statement.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Changed it, though "trying to kill 3 people" rather than "killed 3 people" are morally equivalent.
jimmies 9y ago
>Yes, and the crazy people are the ones who, when desperate and angry, try to kill 3 innocent people and then themselves. That was crazy, but maybe not all parts of that machine were broken. If I genuinely had millions of views on my videos that gave me an income and was suddenly cut off, I would have felt being very wrongly treated as well.

watwut 9y ago

Absolutely it makes sense. "That person shoot out random youtube employees therefore youtube should change its helpdesk" argument does not make sense. It makes as much sense as caving to any other form of terrorism. Youtube and its employees are the victim here. Using this to put pressure on them in the "for the safety of your employees" way is incredibly distasteful.

mschuster91 9y ago
> Youtube and its employees are the victim here. No. The employees are the victim. Youtube? Not at all, save for a day of missed work. Them cutting off a person off their income without any way of appeal caused the whole chain of events in the first place.
- watwut 9y ago
  Jess christ, I can't believe people here argue that with the straight face. Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same? He shot the school therefore school caused it by not giving him everything he wanted? Seriously. By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same? Of course not. But there is, more often than not, a common background between all these cases. Recognize and fix the system and prevent more suffering. Shootings are the ultimate outlet, so if you fix the system you automatically prevent loads of more suffering. > By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting. Yes (except for the rare case where an immediate firing is warranted, such as stealing from the employer, sexual harrassment or similar). There is no obligation to exercise the "fired on the spot". You can as a boss always behave like a decent human being and show your employees at least a fucking basic level of respect. Or you can decide "uh we dont need XYZ any more, even if he's still productive, has worked years of overtime, shown dedication and has to support a family but if I fire him I can make 10k personal bonus that year"... but then I would not be surprised if you'd end up at the wrong end of a baseball bat or worse. By the way I would advise you to read up on how most of the workers' rights we know today in civilized areas of the planet (right to unionize, strike, illegality of "at will employment", social security systems) have been achieved: through shitloads of blood. If your state still has legal "at will employment", the state is responsible for any avoidable suffering caused by this.