Massacre at historic African American Church in Charleston

[crazy canuck]

Gun laws and southern history seem to have a much greater explanatory value than "Poor guy had to go to school with the blacks".

Why do you so often feel the need to twist and misrepresent others' arguments here?  I mean, I know it's Languish but come on.

Maybe you could take a shot at restating Yi's argument in a way that is more coherent.

[viper37]

The problem with this idea, well, one of them anyway, there are a few, is that it does not serve as any kind of explanation.

Lots of people have lots of problems with various other people. Very few of them decide to go into a church and randomly execute some as a result of those problems.

So even if we accept that idea that this is somehow related to his being treated badly (or his perception even that he was treated badly) by black people, it is not interesting. There are majority black schools here in Rochester NY where some of the students are not black - yet nobody has strolled into a downtown church here and killed a lot of people.

So even if we accept this idea that his "society" played some role, it gets us no closer to any kind of explanation or understanding of his actions.

We are still going to have to go back to other factors beyond his attending a school with black people.

This doesn't even begin to get into the more basic objection of the reasoning that sounds suspiciously like "Well, that is bad, of course, but if only those black people hadn't..."

Many, many years ago, a ex soldier entered the Quebec parliament and started shooting at seperatist devils.  Many people explained his gesture by the fact that a popular local radio shock jock was anti-seperatist.

Many years ago, a man, rejected for engineering studies, entered a University and started shooting women.  The feminists were responsbile for his downfall.  Because women were admitted to university, he could not attend it himself and was therefore condemned to a life of misery.  Lots of people blamed the macho culture of Quebec and the hatred of women for his actions.

Not so many years ago, a dude in his bathrobe and wearing sandals took a gun and tried to force his way inside a place where our newly elected Premier was giving her victory speech.  He hated seperatists.  Many people explained his gesture by the fact that anglo-Montreal medias are notably anti-seperatist, often anti-french and spreading hate through the city.

Not so many months ago, a dude who recently (1 year prior) converted to islam tried to force his way in the Parliament of Canada, shooting an unarmed soldier and tried to shoot other people before he was shot to death.  Many people explained his gestures by Canada's evil policies toward muslims in the middle east, our support for Israel, notably.

The justification for 9/11 and his hatred of America by Bin Laden was because you had Christian soldiers on muslim soil.  That was the catalyste to his hatred.

I myself think that there are some people who are schyzophrenic, or have other, similar, mental health problem and something in their environment will act a some sort of catalyst on wich their hatred of the world will be focused.  For some, it will be americans because all they hear is how Americans are evil.  For other, it's the capitalists.  It's the Women.  It's the Blacks. It's the Jews. It's the Democrat.  It's the "nigger" in the White House

Lots of sane people hear the same the thing and don't become homicidal maniac.  Some of them do.

You control explosives very tightly.  You could try to control guns very tightly, though in a country like the US, with so many weapons already in the hands of citizens of all kinds, I doubt it would be effective, even if you could ban the purchase of most guns, there's still a gazillion out there to be bought illegally.

Controlling the people is equally hard, but eventually, it will have to be looked at.  Taboos need to be broken.  Mentally unstable people need to be treated, but for that to happen, their friends, family and co-worker need to recognize the symptoms, accept it's a treatable disease and not a curse from God.  Laws need to be changed so that people can be interned, even against their will, at least for the time to get a proper psych eval.

US does not have anti-speech laws and your Constitution pretty much protect hate speech.  Changing laws on that will be as hard as changing laws on gun control, so good luck.  You can't prevent people from saying the kind of things this kid listened to, not unless you decide to have anti-speech laws like in Canada, and even then it might not do much.

[viper37]

What is your point, btw?

I suspect his path to mass murderer was more personal than ideological.

I can't find an english source for this, but I read in the paper not long ago that, according to one of his friend, he became racist when a girl he had a crush on started dating a black guy.

[Admiral Yi]

Bingo.

[derspiess]

Gun laws and southern history seem to have a much greater explanatory value than "Poor guy had to go to school with the blacks".

Why do you so often feel the need to twist and misrepresent others' arguments here?  I mean, I know it's Languish but come on.

Maybe you could take a shot at restating Yi's argument in a way that is more coherent.

I'll try.  To me, it seems like Yi was initially making a side comment speculating that Roof might have been one of a handful of white kids in a mostly black school-- with the undertone that maybe had a hard time of it there and that might have contributed to his unfortunate hatred of blacks.  I may have missed something in the thread, but I don't remember him expressing sympathy for the murderer or saying that it was simply that there were black kids at his school.

[crazy canuck]

What is your point, btw?

I suspect his path to mass murderer was more personal than ideological.

I can't find an english source for this, but I read in the paper not long ago that, according to one of his friend, he became racist when a girl he had a crush on started dating a black guy.

And the historical culture of his community had no role in him reacting to a black guy dating a girl he liked?  Or no role in killing other black people because of that?  I have no idea how that could possibly be separated out. 

[Berkut]

Excellent post viper.

I largely agree with most of what you are saying.

The only dispute I would have is the tone (and maybe I am reading it wrong) that is basically, "Well, changing laws are hard, and don't even work perfectly, so that isn't a solution..."

To the extent that this man's actions are suscpetible to societal pressure, we can change our societies attitudes. It is entirely possible, even if it is not easy.

Just thirty years ago, I live in a society where nearly everyone smoked, often a lot, and would think absolutely nothing about smoking in an enclosed car packed with children.

Smoking is a instrinsically personal activity with physiological and mental addictive qualiites that would seemingly be incredibly difficult to change.

Now, 30 year ago someone might say "You cannot just ban smoking! People love to smoke, and there is too much money in it, and it is an ingrained part of our culture. Trying to change it would be hopeless and pointless!" and that would be a pretty convincing argument.

Yet today, without ever banning smoking, nobody would even consider lighting a cig up in a car full of kids. The rate of smoking is a fraction  of what it used to be. Culturally, smoking is not see as cool, healthy, or something desirable in any way. We made legal changes (restricting where you can smoke in public), economic changes (taxing consumption at high rates) and cultural changes (less "hey this is cool" advertising, etc).

I think the pervasive racism that still exists, that drives to some extent the actions of otherwise marginally stable individuals, can and should be attacked. Culturally, politically, and legally. They all go together, and they all feed off of one another. We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

So I don't think we should not do anything because whatever we can do can't work on it's own. I think we should continue to do what we can to combat this kind of ignorance, even if the steps to do so are often small and seemingly ineffective.

[Ideologue]

Vipe:Sure, we should have thought crime legislation, but not cameras, and I'm the extremist?

[crazy canuck]

Gun laws and southern history seem to have a much greater explanatory value than "Poor guy had to go to school with the blacks".

Why do you so often feel the need to twist and misrepresent others' arguments here?  I mean, I know it's Languish but come on.

Maybe you could take a shot at restating Yi's argument in a way that is more coherent.

I'll try.  To me, it seems like Yi was initially making a side comment speculating that Roof might have been one of a handful of white kids in a mostly black school-- with the undertone that maybe had a hard time of it there and that might have contributed to his unfortunate hatred of blacks. 

How does one get from being a minority in a school to killing the people who were the majority race in that school without the particular historical context of that place? 

[Ideologue]

Berk: I tell everybody I know that the CSA is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany. I want recognition.

[derspiess]

I think the pervasive racism that still exists, that drives to some extent the actions of otherwise marginally stable individuals, can and should be attacked. Culturally, politically, and legally. They all go together, and they all feed off of one another. We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

I don't think removing the Confederate battle flag from state property and renaming streets is going to do anything to stop people from being racist.  What other suggestions do you have?

[crazy canuck]

I think the pervasive racism that still exists, that drives to some extent the actions of otherwise marginally stable individuals, can and should be attacked. Culturally, politically, and legally. They all go together, and they all feed off of one another. We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

I don't think removing the Confederate battle flag from state property and renaming streets is going to do anything to stop people from being racist.  What other suggestions do you have?

At the very least stopping the positive reinforcement of racism is a start.

[derspiess]

How does one get from being a minority in a school to killing the people who were the majority race in that school without the particular historical context of that place? 

I don't get the question, sorry.

[Ideologue]

I think the pervasive racism that still exists, that drives to some extent the actions of otherwise marginally stable individuals, can and should be attacked. Culturally, politically, and legally. They all go together, and they all feed off of one another. We cannot ban being a racist, but we can stop providing racism political cover by tolerating hogwash like "Let's put the confederate battle flag all over the place and name streets after Confederate generals because ZOMG TEH CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!". There are steps that we can take that are political, where those steps are possible and constitutional. There are steps we as a society can take culturally, that I think are already happening - people standing up and speaking against such things. We are seeing that happen right now, and even this thread is some tiny piece of that.

I don't think removing the Confederate battle flag from state property and renaming streets is going to do anything to stop people from being racist.  What other suggestions do you have?

Well, you're wrong. It signals that the cultural victory of revanchist white racists is finally being rolled back, and that symbols of treason and slavery will at least no longer be endorsed by the state, and thereby are not endorsed by the sovereign, the people. It will nor solve race in America, but it will remove one brick from racism's foundation,

[crazy canuck]

How does one get from being a minority in a school to killing the people who were the majority race in that school without the particular historical context of that place? 

I don't get the question, sorry.

You were trying to explain a position that I don't understand which is how the history of racism of that place doesn't play a role but instead the actions of the shooter can be explained by the shooter spending time in a predominately black school.  It seems to me spending time in a black school only becomes relevant in a society that views the racial distinction as particularly relevant.