The Killing Schools
Oct. 6th, 2015 06:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksDavid Young posted a link to this article on Spiked:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-oregon-we-need-to-talk-about-narcissism/17515#.VhQIPPlVhHx
which asserts that narcissism, rather than guns, is the main cause of mass murders (I deliberately use the word "murders" rather than "shootings", because, obviously, with greater gun control, you would reduce the number of mass shootings, but this does not prove that you would reduce the number of mass murders. As they say on the BBC, "other weapons of mass destruction are available").
The binary nature of US politics cannot but help become part of the gun control debate.
While I agree that gun control will not "solve" the problem (which runs far more deeply through American society) that does not necessitate me opposing a greater degree of gun control.
I don't think that it's even "just" narcissism. Indeed, this implies that narcissism is a "disease", which I would dispute. Narcissism that goes out of control is the problem, just as with guns, it's an out-of-control use of guns that is the problem.
In other words, I would posit that distorted narcissism and distorted gun use are both symptoms, not underlying problems. But I would still support greater controls of gun sales and greater awareness of the problems created by distorted narcissism.
That narcissism isn't the sole problem is not completely addressed in the Spike article.
The author notes that
So, what is the underlying problem? There is clearly something rotten in the heart of US society that is leading some young males down this route. Is it a sense of entitlement? Is it the ease with they can externalise the anger that they feel because that sense of entitlement is not being fulfilled? Is it, indeed, a system that is distorting the impact of testosteronal flow?
In part, it's possibly an inevitable by-product of things getting "bigger and better". In a hermetically sealed small-town world, where everyone knows everyone else, this kind of anger would have resulted in fights in a bar on Saturday night. In a far wider more sophisticated world, that isn't enough. The modern equivalent is a mass murder.
Would making the US smaller and quieter solve the problem? No, because you can't make it "smaller and quieter". It's a genie that can't go back in the bottle.
In other words, searching for "an answer" is futile, because in anthropological terms, America is a society that will produce these responses from a limited number of young males. The males haven't changed -- what has changed is their sense of entitlement and their imagination as to the possible response.
The best that the US can hope for, I think, is to undertake bit-by-bit changes in a large number of areas, not least the early identification of the so-called loner/narcissist, and pro-actively making sure that they feel included in society rather than excluded. The problem is, these characters are often "difficult". They seem to invite exclusion even though that is not what they really want.
In the meantime, you can try to make gun-ownership look "girlie" ("a real man can use his fists") and try to divert young males' hormonal drives into other areas of -- less fatal -- violence. Instead of condemning these things with middle class superiority, they should be encouraged.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-oregon-we-need-to-talk-about-narcissism/17515#.VhQIPPlVhHx
which asserts that narcissism, rather than guns, is the main cause of mass murders (I deliberately use the word "murders" rather than "shootings", because, obviously, with greater gun control, you would reduce the number of mass shootings, but this does not prove that you would reduce the number of mass murders. As they say on the BBC, "other weapons of mass destruction are available").
The binary nature of US politics cannot but help become part of the gun control debate.
While I agree that gun control will not "solve" the problem (which runs far more deeply through American society) that does not necessitate me opposing a greater degree of gun control.
I don't think that it's even "just" narcissism. Indeed, this implies that narcissism is a "disease", which I would dispute. Narcissism that goes out of control is the problem, just as with guns, it's an out-of-control use of guns that is the problem.
In other words, I would posit that distorted narcissism and distorted gun use are both symptoms, not underlying problems. But I would still support greater controls of gun sales and greater awareness of the problems created by distorted narcissism.
That narcissism isn't the sole problem is not completely addressed in the Spike article.
The author notes that
narcissistic, affirmation-hungry character, the same infantile determination to place oneself at the centre of the world (indeed, the very act of leaving a ‘message to the world’ speak to an urge for self-glorification)but fails to address the point that often such characters do not indulge in mass slaughter. Indeed, among females, suicide attempts seem to be a much more common to try to be the centre of the universe. Then there is the (much rarer) Munchausen-by-proxy (also a mainly female manifestation). With young males in the UK, suicide itself looks to be the main ultimate narcissistic act. (Clearly the lines blur; some cries for help are also genuine suicide attempts. Some non-narcissists become mass murderers, but not in a single act).
So, what is the underlying problem? There is clearly something rotten in the heart of US society that is leading some young males down this route. Is it a sense of entitlement? Is it the ease with they can externalise the anger that they feel because that sense of entitlement is not being fulfilled? Is it, indeed, a system that is distorting the impact of testosteronal flow?
In part, it's possibly an inevitable by-product of things getting "bigger and better". In a hermetically sealed small-town world, where everyone knows everyone else, this kind of anger would have resulted in fights in a bar on Saturday night. In a far wider more sophisticated world, that isn't enough. The modern equivalent is a mass murder.
Would making the US smaller and quieter solve the problem? No, because you can't make it "smaller and quieter". It's a genie that can't go back in the bottle.
In other words, searching for "an answer" is futile, because in anthropological terms, America is a society that will produce these responses from a limited number of young males. The males haven't changed -- what has changed is their sense of entitlement and their imagination as to the possible response.
The best that the US can hope for, I think, is to undertake bit-by-bit changes in a large number of areas, not least the early identification of the so-called loner/narcissist, and pro-actively making sure that they feel included in society rather than excluded. The problem is, these characters are often "difficult". They seem to invite exclusion even though that is not what they really want.
In the meantime, you can try to make gun-ownership look "girlie" ("a real man can use his fists") and try to divert young males' hormonal drives into other areas of -- less fatal -- violence. Instead of condemning these things with middle class superiority, they should be encouraged.
Now, here's a narcissistic distinction for you
Date: 2015-10-08 08:52 pm (UTC)Presuppose two maniacs who, for some reason, wish to kill a lot of random people, possibly grouped under some label, and are prepared to die whilst doing so.
The Western Model (OK, the US model): stock up on Glocks and semi-automatics and all the lovely gear you can buy from, say, Walmart. Walk into a movie theater or a college campus or even a random TV interview. (This also works if you want to kill every in-law in range.) Fire away! Your choices are now, basically, either to turn the gun on yourself or to wait for the Feds to shoot you down.
The Middle-Eastern Model: Strap up with a suicide vest. Better still, load about 1,000lbs of fertilizer or other cheap explosive in the back of a Toyota. Drive into a target featuring, well, actually, it might just as well be the in-laws. I'm not convinced that yer average lunatic really cares. Your choices are now, basically, jump out and spray bullets at random with your AK-47, or else get blown away with the truck.
Both of these seem to me to be equivalent narcissistic choices. And yes, narcissism qualifies as just as much (or as little) of a "disease" as, say, manic depression. In all such cases we are obviously talking about the extremes here.
And basically the narcissist is going to die. And presumably accepts that fact.
Don't see the difference in terms of outcomes here. What matters, I think, is an analysis of the supply and availability.
... and I've never once convinced a single American, let alone a member of ISIL, of that.
Re: Now, here's a narcissistic distinction for you
Date: 2015-10-08 10:45 pm (UTC)But that does not justify making it easy to find that way. Just a few higher hurdles might shift several "wannabees" from one side (going for it) to the other (wanting to do it but not going through with it).
This is why the arguments that places like Switzerland have lots of guns but no mass murders is not an argument for not enforcing gun control. Because Switzerland has the other advantage of not being a total crank house.
The killing ideology...
Date: 2015-10-26 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-13 11:51 am (UTC)In previous eras the typical autist would be hanging around Crewe train station jotting down train numbers. In the digital world, the unique skills possessed by many autistic people are highly prized and rewarded accordingly. From being social misfits, they are now the entrepreneurs who offer financial security and are therefore attractive to women. The more these people procreate the more autistic people are born, many of whom will lack empathy - some of whom will field alienated from their peers. Previous generations of autistic men/geeks whose gifts would be less prized, would become loners.
The original article, like almost everything published on Spiked was ludicrous, provocative clickbait. Start with a conclusion and work backwards to make the narrative tie in with it.