this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
767 points (86.8% liked)
4chan
4214 readers
42 users here now
Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I fail to see the relevance of this post and it comes off as if people want to victim blame. A lot of people have problems. A lot of people get bullied. Just think about the thousands of women who get raped and sexually abused throughout their lifes.
Mass shooter fit a profile, sure. They obviously aren't happy people. But the reason why they do this is not what has happened to them in their lifes. Otherwise we would have a lot more mass shooters.
I think you're missing the point in that we already have a lot of mass shooters because society has failed them.
This is a symptom of our society.
Trying to absolve society of its involvement is essentially just turning a blind eye to the problem and hoping it goes away. Which is exactly the problem that we have.
This is simply taking an actual nuanced thought on the situation instead of letting your emotions regulate your thoughts and turning everything into a false dichotomy.
It is not society which is failing when people turn to murder it's the people who turn to murder who are failing.
The focus should be on why a few people decide it's okay to hate other groups of people so much, that they murder them.
To believe it's society's fault people are turning into murderes and now it's society's responsibility to dissolve each and every problem anyone could have ever is completely unrealistic.
People will always have problems. And there will always be people who believe other lives are worth less. It's much more likely to be able to do something against the latter than doing something against people having problems.
Well said.
Also, seems like a lot of people here on Lemmy fall for that, unfortunately.
A lot more mass shooters? You mean like we've got? The number is going up, is that not a good indicator at an external factor?
Yeah, there would be orders of magnitude more mass shooters if everyone with a garbage childhood and an intellectual challenge followed this path. It is the tiny minority of such people who take the terrorist path.
What other fuckin' reason is there? Everyone is precisely how they are because of the sum total of their life experiences and the results of their genetic lottery.
Because a lot of people have struggles and only few are becoming murderers or hurt people in other ways. Murderes, at some point in their lifes, decided it is okay to hurt others. That is the deciding factor.
We are our memories.
We are the decisions we make. Each person is the sum of how they react to stimulus.
And we make those decisions based on our life experiences, also known as memories.
We have enough examples of (mass) murderes who did not have horrible lives and so many people have horrible lives and don't kill others.
It's illogical to draw the conclusion it's a bad life that turns people into murderes.
A better course of action would be higher intervention at the point were someone decides: "others should suffer for my problems".
I'm something of a news junkie and I haven't heard of them. Maybe there's a one-off here or there, but the majority of them would not have what you described.
Well yes, of course. Mental illness is a spectrum, it's a bell curve, it's not an on and off switch, when it comes to murder.
I disagree with this, strongly.
Honestly that sounds like an opinion of someone who believes illogically in that we're always "captains of our ship" and we're always perfect mentally, and that we always can make decisions free of illness.
Humanity is just not like that, we have emotions and can have mental illness, and sometimes they drive us to do things that we regret later on or uncontrolling of during.
Mental illness can affect our perception of things to the point where we do things that seem logical to us but that society would think is completely illogical, like murder.
I think you have trouble differentiating between causes and fault or responsibility. English is not my native language, so perhaps I get the inuendo wrong. But claiming "Cruz' crime was 100 % society's fault" absolves the murderer of all his responsibility.
Society is not responsible for the decisions you make, it's your decision alone. You don't get to blame others for your decisions to hurt and murder people.
Very dismissal of you to think that of me.
For the record, I don't.
Nobody ever said 100%.
We affect each other more than we realise and/or want to admit. Humans are social creatures.
And again, not talking in absolutes.
Perhaps take a look at the post again.
I went up several levels and reviewed everything I said, and didn't see where I ever said 100%.
You want to point it out to me?
The topic of the post, like what this thread is about??
Oh FFS. I was talking about our and other people's conversation here on Lemmy about the article, and not the article itself that you linked.
Did society make you ignore the context of my original post?
That was the original comment by you that I replied to. The tone of that paragraph was suggesting you were speaking about me specifically.
As English is not your first language, I would suggest next time separating that paragraph into two paragraphs, or adding to the end of that paragraph something along the lines of "as the original article states".
I would suggest you understand comment hierarchy on Lemmy. You responded to my comment, which was in the tree of a direct response to the topic. Not to you or any other comment.
You can see that by the fact that there's no line next to my post when you look at top layer of hierarchy:
I notice you keep trying to "Kill the Messenger" by challenging my understanding and intelligence level.
I've made plenty of posts throughout the decades to understand how it works. Also, English is my primary language.
I stand by my comments to you about how you worded your comment that I replied to.
Finally, a reminder of what I said, since the screen pic that you posted is not referring to the comment that I was replying to, and speaking about...
"Killing the messenger" apparently means to "attack the bringer of bad news". That doesn't seem to be a good fit for the situation at all. I suggest you read the definition again. I suppose what you meant to say is an "ad hominem attack".
Well, I am certainly sorry when it came off as an insult to you. But it's quite the stretch to assume I wanted to challenge your intelligence by simply trying to understand what could be the underlying cause for you to write something that seemed simply untrue to me.