CNN: Giant blast hits government buildings in Oslo, Norway; shooter fires at youth camp

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I understand where you're coming from, and it's worse because what they're saying is not true, but I still can't go with this.

If somebody bombed a coal power plant, and killed a bunch of oil workers, I wouldn't blame Al Gore and other environmentalists either, despite the fact that many of them use very strong language about dangers to the Earth and our future, even if the attacker quoted them extensively.

That's the mistake some are making here...thinking that simply because this guy quotes from written publications that the written publications played a role in causing the violence.

History is filled with the blame for atrocities being placed in the wrong hands, and then seeing governments often using that misplaced blame to help further an agenda. We'd be wise to not encourage any government to feel it's an acceptable tactic to use.

[Baculus]

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think implicating The Catcher in the Rye in the murder of John Lennon is going to help your overall argument.

Some people need something to set them off, almost as if they are an unwilling or unknowing Manchurian Candidate. For Manson, it was music and Helter Skelter, while Chapman wanted to be Holden Caulfield from Catcher, and that led him down the road to eventually killing Lennon.

That's what some of the folks here don't understand: Little things can and do affect people.

[twa]

Yeah but other nations that have pretty similar low crime stats still have their officers carry firearms, not saying its necessary just didn't know about it.

Most cops in England don't carry guns either do they?...or has that changed?

SHF ....was his hatred simply for Muslims or those ( Norwegians) he felt were destroying his country?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Some people need something to set them off, almost as if they are an unwilling or unknowing Manchurian Candidate. For Manson, it was music and Helter Skelter. Chapman wanted to be Holden Caulfield from Catcher, and that led him down the road to eventually killing Lennon.

Man, you have ZERO idea of how the minds of people like the ones you mentioned actually work lol...

None of the people you mentioned needed "something to set them off". For Manson, it was NOT "music and "Helter Skelter". It was having an alcoholic for a mother who used to keep him in her bedroom while she had sex with men and sold him to a waitress for a pitcher of been...he even had an uncle who dressed him in girls' clothing...then being abused, physically and sexually, while in juvenile lock up...bouncing from home to home, being accepted then rejected by his mother later in his pre-teen years...and a long list of other things which warped and broke this man's mind before he even turned 18. Add in an abundance of drug use, and what you end up with is a psychotic individual who was on a collision course with violence (directly or indirectly)...the song "Helter Skelter" played ZERO role in the events that surrounded Manson, outside of him using the song to validate his warped perspective on reality.

But if that song had not been recorded, he would have used something else. His warped perception was already in place...it wasn't due TO the song. And in reality, the song Helter Skelter meant nothing like how Manson interpreted it. His mind was so gone by then, that he couldn't even understand the song and its intent.

Chapman's insanity was not in any way connected to his having read Catcher In The Rye. Jeez, please tell me you don't really believe that it was.

That's what some of the folks here don't understand: Little things can and do affect people. For example, my dad raised me on fantasy and science-fiction books, and these genres have influenced my entire life.

Little things effect people. Little things do NOT cause or even lead to the types of violence we saw in this massacre. That's what you don't get.

[oisn1]

So if it had been a Muslim extremist, would it be okay to blame Islam?

I suspect that most of the people now on the defensive about blaming conservativism would say yes, while most of the people claiming a valid link to conservatism would say no, though I am prepared for the inevitable deluge of individual denials.

It's about blaming conservatism, though, so that's different. Everybody switch!

Why don't we just blame the violent first person shooter video games?

Or maybe the Freemasons. Nobody likes the Freemasons.

Seriously, who is blaming conservatism? Who is saying that? People are blaming the influence that far right extremists can have on people. People are blaming the toxic rhetoric that people like Pam Geller spew everyday. Pam Geller is not mainstream. Geert Wilders is not mainstream. They are fringe figures who espouse irrational hatred of Muslims. A hatred so deep and encompassing that one would assume that Muslims are some monolithic entity trying to install a caliphate in Europe. That is not mainstream.

There is a difference between blaming conservatism and right-wing extremism. There is a difference between blaming fundamental Islam and all Muslims. So again, thanks for the strawman but no one is blaming conservatism. People are blaming the rhetoric of Islamophobic bigots like Pam Geller. Again, if you feel that Geller, Wilders, and the Unabomber are representative of your brand of conservatism, then yes I think you are animal and blame your conservatism. But I'll make a bet that most conservatives don't subscribe to that brand.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Seriously, who is blaming conservatism? Who is saying that? People are blaming the influence that far right extremists can have on people. People are blaming the toxic rhetoric that people like Pam Geller spew everyday. Pam Geller is not mainstream. Geert Wilders is not mainstream. They are fringe figures who espouse irrational hatred of Muslims. A hatred so deep and encompassing that one would assume that Muslims are some monolithic entity trying to install a caliphate in Europe. That is not mainstream.

They shouldn't even be blaming that.

There is a difference between blaming conservatism and right-wing extremism. There is a difference between blaming fundamental Islam and all Muslims. So again, thanks for the strawman but no one is blaming conservatism. People are blaming the rhetoric of Islamophobic bigots like Pam Geller. Again, if you feel that Geller, Wilders, and the Unabomber are representative of your brand of conservatism, then yes I think you are animal and blame your conservatism. But I'll make a bet that most conservatives don't subscribe to that brand.

It's misplaced blame based off of individual political leanings. It ain't based off fact, psychological study or a deep understanding of the delusional human mind.

[techboy]

Seriously, who is blaming conservatism? Who is saying that?

I actually already suggested that I perhaps should have used the words "right wing". However...

First of all, American conservatives are constantly trying to portray all liberals and leftists as anti-Americans, or terrorists sympathizers -- this would include YOU, too. Secondly, the Norwegian shooter has views that EXACTLY mirror American conservative thought, especially since he is a self-declared conservative, influenced by American conservatives. But no, that ain't good enough: You have to deflect blame from your ideology, anything to shift blame onto the belief system of the murdered youths instead of the killer and the views which drove his actions.

Again, if you feel that Geller, Wilders, and the Unabomber are representative of your brand of conservatism, then yes I think you are animal and blame your conservatism.

I'm not a conservative, if that makes any difference to you.

I did, however, expand a little further later in the thread, so you might want to read that too.

[shk75]

Wow Colbert was awesome in his intro on the media coverage and its rush to blame Islam

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Wow Colbert was awesome in his intro on the media coverage and its rush to blame Islam

What did he say?

[shk75]

What did he say?

Just basically showed how all the media outlets claimed it was muslim extremists who were responsible for the attacks and how reluctant they were to eat their crow when they were proven wrong.

[MrSilverMaC]

I'm laughing at the idea that this guy's actions were the result of what he's read lol...

Our minds are not so fragile that our perspectives on the world can be distorted to a delusional and violent degree merely by reading the wrong publications.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, "What happened to crazy?" ...This guy would have acted out in a violent manner regardless of what he had read or not read...it's inner demons that cause this type of action by a lone individual, not "hateful rhetoric".

This isn't to single your response out Cali, since there are more than a few posts that share a similar sentiment, but claiming the words carry little to no power is silly.

It is quite obvious that this guy is off mentally but who is to say how he got there? It's possible that he simply has a chemical imbalance, hereditary pre-disposition, or some other genetic reason for the thinking pattern that lead to this but whether that is true or not doesn't dismiss the role words could have and more than likely did play in this outcome. Words have power plain and simple.

The pen isn't mightier than the sword because it's a better stabbing implement it's more powerful because of the words and ideas it can spread. Men like hitler, stalin, mao, or any other mass murderer didn't gain power because they were the best cage fighter in their respective countries, they gained power through words.

Simply dismissing words as meaningless is to ignore all of history. Hitler didn't come to power over a nation of madmen and women he came to power over a nation of normal people in a bad situation that pre-disposed them to his words. Lenin didn't lead a movement of lunatic asylum escapees that would go on to kill tens of millions of his own countrymen just cause he happened to be the craziest of the bunch he lead a revolution of poor working class russians with words and the ideas they expressed.

The things we read and hear affect all of us. I know we all like to sit there and say music, video games, books, magazines, t.v, and movies don't really affect us but we are wrong. Talk to a new Christian or Muslim and ask them how the bible and quran has affected their life. Ask a historian if Thomas Payne or the other writings of American patriots had any part in the colonist's resolve to be a free nation. Think of how certain songs affect you and how they can alter your mood.

Words matter and they are powerful and they affect us at different times for different reasons and to varying degrees depending on our state of mind. None of us knows this guy, none of us knows very much about his life contrary to what we may or may not think. It's possible that this guy is just a homicidal maniac who was destined to kill over 80 kids/teens and that no outside factors played into it but I think anyone who looks at this honestly would say that the chance of that is indeed small.

Admitting that words carry weight doesn't absolve this guy from what he did. It doesn't make him any less of a monster. What it does is implicate those who foster and spread those ideas. If the pen is mightier than the sword, how much more powerful is the internet than the pen? What it took Christianity and the bible centuries to do regarding the spreading of an idea or belief you can do in a day or two online. If you make available a hate filled idea to hundreds of millions of people it is bound to be read by someone who is not in the right state of mind and from there who knows how far it can go. But this is a common occurrence. Hate-filled sites, columns, and blogs are a google search away. Radio shows that get more and more partisan broadcast 24 hours a day. News providers seem to be in a race to see how much they can twist a situation to justify their ideology of choice. All of it just words. But words have power.

I am not advocating censorship. I am an American who loves the fact that our constitution protects unpopular language and allows people to express themselves but we have to be responsible. We've lost far too many of our freedoms because of extremists but the things that are said in the name of nation, religion, or any other belief system can be dangerous.

Anders Breivik is an evil man who committed evil on an unbelievable scale. It is indefensible and blaming an idea doesn't remove his responsibility but it is important to find the idea and it's source and put some light on it so it can be dealt with.

Proverbs 4:24, 6:2, 10:11, 10:14, 10:19, 10:21, 11:9, 11:11, 12:18, 13:3, 14:3, 15:1-2, 15:4, 15:23, 15:28, 16:24, 16:28-29

[Baculus]

Man, you have ZERO idea of how the minds of people like the ones you mentioned actually work lol.p[=/quote]

And your blanket claim regarding literature, that it couldn't influence the actions of the Norwegian shooter, shows that you have ZERO idea of "how the minds of people like the ones you mentioned" can be affected by external ideas.

Look at this statement you made: "The mindless slaughter of hundreds of innocents by a lone individual will NEVER be due to rhetoric."

First of all, if a lone individual kills hundreds of innocents, he is (1) either in the military,which means that he is certainly influenced by "rhetoric" which is simply persuasive language, or (2) a suicide bomber, or some such, many of whom, as a note, are devoutly religious, influence by both text and religion. Wahhabist schools are example of this.

Now, with your statement, are you talking about a lone gunman? Because none of them have really have killed hundreds, though Breivik probably killed more than anyone, including serial killers, by himself. If he is then an exemplary case of mass slaughter by one person, then you are indeed incorrect, because he himself, in his long deliberations, specifically points to anti-Islamic writers which helped to form his ideology and his emic.

YOU don't know how every single person operates and what forces, internal or external, is going to affect them.

Here's another bit of questionable insight from you:

Again...some of you naively feel that what this individual read actually played a role in his actions.

Yeah, as if you show any credentials to prove the validity of your point, otherwise. Who are you again? Oh yeah, another person expressing their opinion on the Tailgate.

None of the people you mentioned needed "something to set them off". For Manson, it was NOT "music and "Helter Skelter".

Long paragraph. All irrelevant. I never said one factor was the deciding factor in any of this.

BTW, the member of the Manson families were certainly influenced by rhetoric from Manson. The drugs helped, too.

But if that song had not been recorded, he would have used something else.

Sure. I never said otherwise. Also, what's the point of you saying, "He would have used something else," if you were previously claiming that what a person reads, or hears, can't play a role in their actions?

His warped perception was already in place...it wasn't due TO the song.

I never said it was due to the song. I like Helter Skelter; I don't think it produces crazy rays.

This is a square peg, round hole argument. I only said that certain literature can provide an "inciting incident," a light-bulb moment, for some people where it all comes together, or where it slowly grinds its way into their psyche.

People are complicated things.

And in reality, the song Helter Skelter meant nothing like how Manson interpreted it. His mind was so gone by then, that he couldn't even understand the song and its intent.

Well, yeah, that goes without saying. The Beatles weren't singing about a race war.

Chapman's insanity was not in any way connected to his having read Catcher In The Rye. Jeez, please tell me you don't really believe that it was.

Where did I say it did? Obviously Chapman had mental issues, which goes without saying. In his case, though, Salinger book accessorized his mental condition. Here is what Chapman himself said in a Larry King interview (regarding himself):

"CHAPMAN: On December 8, 1980 Mark David Chapman was a very confused person. He was literally living inside of a paperback novel, J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye." He was vacillating between suicide, between catching the first taxi home, back to Hawaii, between killing, as you said, an icon."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/30/lklw.00.html

Little things effect people. Little things do NOT cause or even lead to the types of violence we saw in this massacre. That's what you don't get.

OK, you contradicted yourself here, it would seem. Care to clarify yourself? Do you mean that "big things do NOT cause or even lead to the types of violence we saw in this massacre."

I am not sure what you're trying to say at this point.

[Koala]

It's possible to be brilliant and mentally ill at the same time. He's almost certainly legally culpable, but that's a far cry from saying he isn't insane.

\

Edit: Realized I posted a total nonsequiter.

[brandymac27]

Breivik's father: I wish my son killed himself

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20082948-503543.html?tag=strip

The father of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who confessed to last Friday's twin terror attacks, said he was ashamed and disgusted by his son's acts and wished he had committed suicide.

Jens David Breivik, a former diplomat who lives in retirement in the south of France, said he first learned of his son's attacks from media websites.

"I couldn't believe my eyes. It was totally paralyzing and I couldn't really understand it," he said.

Breivik's parents divorced in 1980, and his father lived in London while he and his mother lived in Oslo.

In an interview with the Swedish tabloid Expressen, Breivik said he and his son have had virtually no contact with one another since 1995 (when Anders was 16), except for a "bland" phone call about 10 years ago.

"I don't feel like his father," said Breivik from his secluded home in southern France. "How could he just stand there and kill so many innocent people and just seem to think that what he did was OK? He should have taken his own life, too. That's what he should have done."

"I will have to live with this shame for the rest of my life. People will always link me with him," he said.

When asked what he would say to his son if he had the opportunity, Jens Breivik said he didn't know, and didn't know if Anders would listen. "He must live in another world; I do not think he would understand."

He added that his son should consider the sorrow and suffering he has caused. "He has ruined so many lives. He must think of the consequences," Jens Breivik said.

On Monday police surrounded the elder Breivik's house in the south of France, to ensure the safety of Breivik after reporters and photographers swarmed to his property.

[Baculus]

I actually already suggested that I perhaps should have used the words "right wing". However...

I actually use "right-wing" more than "conservative," since political conservatism is a complicated beast, with various forms of the ideology (and it's almost more of a "crossroads of ideas" than a mere ideology), in addition to the non-political meaning of the term. In this case, I used conservative since Breivik specifically called himself a conservative (though I have still been referring to the "right-wing")

I'm not a conservative, if that makes any difference to you.

Just out of curiosity, if you were going to label yourself, what would you use? (And by labeling, I don't mean simple party affiliation or some such . . .)

[Califan007 The Constipated]

This isn't to single your response out Cali, since there are more than a few posts that share a similar sentiment, but claiming the words carry little to no power is silly.

I didn't say words carry little to no power.

I said words NEVER play even a slightly significant role in an individual carrying out an act of violence like this bombing/shooting. That is caused by something internal, not external. Decades of forensic psychological analysis backs this up to an undeniable degree.

It is quite obvious that this guy is off mentally but who is to say how he got there? It's possible that he simply has a chemical imbalance, hereditary pre-disposition, or some other genetic reason for the thinking pattern that lead to this but whether that is true or not doesn't dismiss the role words could have and more than likely did play in this outcome. Words have power plain and simple.

Nope ..Doesn't happen that way. That's too simplistic and linear. The acts of extreme violence that committed by people with delusional, broken minds aren't caused by some external force setting them off. These types are unable to process things in a realistic way. So they're most likely not even interpreting the words they're reading or hearing correctly, anyway. It is normally the culmination of a lot of delusional thinking that they have built their "reality" around, and have latched onto any small and insignificant thing along the way that helps them tell themselves that they're right.

Even if what they latch onto does NOT tell them they are right. Even if what they latch onto is not telling them anything related to their warped views. It doesn't matter to them.

Simply dismissing words as meaningless is to ignore all of history.

Jeebus lol :doh:...

WHERE DID I SAY WORDS ARE MEANINGLESS?

What I do dismiss is the naive notion that this tragedy and this guy's acts can be blamed in any way on what he read. Anyone who says it is has very little understanding on how humans are wired.

If you honestly can't understand any of that, then responding to the rest of your post would be a waste of both our times.

Hitler didn't come to power over a nation of madmen and women he came to power over a nation of normal people in a bad situation that pre-disposed them to his words.

And Hitler and the people of Nazi Germany were not a lone aggresor...which is why I specifically kept on saying that when someone acts ALONE it will never be chalked up to words being the driving force behind their acts.

Lenin didn't lead a movement of lunatic asylum escapees that would go on to kill tens of millions of his own countrymen just cause he happened to be the craziest of the bunch he lead a revolution of poor working class russians with words and the ideas they expressed.

See above lol ...again, it's obvious you either didn't really read my posts or you did read them but failed to understand what I was writing. You're welcome to your views, of course, but I am NOT wrong on this.

Beyond my own study of the subject, my brother is a professor of psychology and my aunt is a retired FBI and Secret Service agent who has extensive experience dealing with just this topic...and over the last 20 years I have been in numerous discussions with both on this very topic because it's a fascinating one to me...what exactly drives an individual human being to extreme acts of violence?

Nowhere will you find a valid study done that points the finger at things like video games, music, movies, books, articles or speeches.

[oisn1]

I actually already suggested that I perhaps should have used the words "right wing". However...

I'm not a conservative, if that makes any difference to you.

I did, however, expand a little further later in the thread, so you might want to read that too.

So one post makes this thread an attack on the right-wing, when most every other poster has not done the same. Again, it's unreal that criticizing a fringe element of the right-wing that is overly concerned with the existence of "brown" people who believe in a different god is tantamount to laying an oppressive assault on every idea of the right wing. Look at the majority of the posters and you'll see that people are bashing idiotic fringe movements. Hell, when looking at the general discourse in the media, they seem to be treating very carefully, talking about fringe conservatism.

Additionally, I don't really consider you anything. I was just stating that if you subscribe to that brand of conservatism then you are worthy of being ridiculed.

[twa]

Somehow I don't think it is the existence of "brown" people who believe in a different god that drives Gellar and co

[oisn1]

I didn't say words carry little to no power.

I said words NEVER play even a slightly significant role in an individual carrying out an act of violence like this bombing/shooting. That is caused by something internal, not external. Decades of forensic psychological analysis backs this up to an undeniable degree.

I'd like to read that research, but I will say this; Reading is...... an internal action. A book is not read to you, it is internalized by your brain and you interpret it. The question being, how is the book leading you? When you read Mein Kampf, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bible, there is a moral or goal to the reading. The same happens when someone gives a speech.

An extreme example is the fact that your parents can tell you everyday that you need to kill all Muslims. For a kid with anti-social tendencies, are you saying that has no "significant" role in shaping the kids behavior? Why is it that racist parents tend to have racist children?

Violence, and terrorism in this case, are the hallmarks of deranged people. But the question is what pushes them towards a certain outcome. We don't put the responsibility on the Geller and Co. for killing those people, we put it on Breivik. But we can acknowledge that when you peddle fear-mongering, extremist garbage, it may have a negative consequence on people. When you gain mainstream exposure and promote Islamophobia, it may impact people in a negative way. Seriously, this is not hard to understand.

[MrSilverMaC]

See above lol ...again, it's obvious you either didn't really read my posts or you did read them but failed to understand what I was writing. You're welcome to your views, of course, but I am NOT wrong on this.

No, I read it. And I read it again. And it says the same thing to me as does your follow up response. You seem to completely dismiss the affects of words on people or as you prefer to look at it, singular persons. Although the fact that you have a psychologist and ex-fbi agent family members that agree with your stance is interesting. Perhaps in a pm you can explain the difference that would cause a nation to commit atrocities but not an individual that see's himself as part of a greater movement. I'd be interested in how you come by that opinion.

I am also curious though explosives and guns have been around for quite some time I have never heard of a massacre like this with a lone person prior to the second half of the 20th century. I am sure someone can point me to an example but I've never heard of one. I wonder why that is although I will admit a single persons lethality has greatly increased with the improvement in small arms rate of fire and knowledge of chemical mixtures to produce explosives. But then, news and opinions also have a higher rate of dispersion and range as well.

edit:

Also Cali, I wonder if you read the passages that I listed form the book of Proverbs. I listed them not so much a a religious thing, but more to show that even in the old testament which was written over 2000 years ago that the power of words on an individual is acknowledged. It takes on even heavier meaning if you believe in the bible in that even God is telling you that words have the power to influence singular individuals and is warning against what is said.

[MrSilverMaC]

Breivik's father: I wish my son killed himself

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20082948-503543.html?tag=strip

The father shows an odd sort of detachment from his son. On one hand he is questioning how his son could do such a thing while on the other admitting he has no emotional attachment to his own son to the point he suggests he should have taken his own life. Not something most parents would do.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

And your blanket claim regarding literature, that it couldn't influence the actions of the Norwegian shooter, shows that you have ZERO idea of "how the minds of people like the ones you mentioned" can be affected by external ideas.

But NOT to the point that it plays any role whatsoever in the act of violence like this.

Look at this statement you made: "The mindless slaughter of hundreds of innocents by a lone individual will NEVER be due to rhetoric."

First of all, if a lone individual kills hundreds of innocents, he is (1) either in the military,which means that he is certainly influenced by "rhetoric" which is simply persuasive language, or (2) a suicide bomber, or some such, many of whom, as a note, are devoutly religious, influence by both text and religion. Wahhabist schools are example of this.

And let's look at YOUR statement lol...

1) I didn't say "kills"...I said "mindless slaughter". significant difference. Claiming one who does this could be in the military alludes to collateral damage...which is not the "mindless slaughter" I am speaking of. And you should know this.

2) Suicide bombers RARELY act on an individual basis. They are part of a larger network, in which far, FAR more than words are playing a role in their decision making and world views.

The ones that DO act on an individual basis, you will find were damn near almost always nutso before any of the words they may have read or heard came into the scene lol...these individuals latch onto ANYTHING to help fuel their inner demons and warped viewpoints, it doesn't matter what it is...so removing the hateful rhetoric only means they will latch onto something else and distort the words and meaning to fit their internal agenda. We remove that new "thing" from the equation, they latch onto something else still. That's why it's asinine to focus on what he read as if it played an important role in his actions. Because it did not. Reading up on how to build a bomb would have played a HUGELY bigger role in this massacre than reading any anti-Islam blogs on the interwebz.

Now, with your statement, are you talking about a lone gunman? Because none of them have really have killed hundreds, though Breivik probably killed more than anyone, including serial killers, by himself. If he is then an exemplary case of mass slaughter by one person, then you are indeed incorrect, because he himself, in his long deliberations, specifically points to anti-Islamic writers which helped to form his ideology and his emic.

I'm talking about individuals who are not part of a larger network...a normal individual can have their reality temporarily warped by a larger network of individuals who have the right structure in place to do so. An individual without that larger network has to warp his OWN reality...thankfully to him, that warping had probably already been taking place during his developmental years, sometimes even before he's able TO read. Imagine that lol ...

As for this guy claiming that reading anti-Islamic writers helping him form his ideology, two things:

1) Ted Bundy claimed that pornography helped him "form" his views on women and them being disposable. Pure rubbish, of course, but that's what he claimed. Too many facts back up the "pure rubbish" part but I'm not gonna go into them now, it would take too long. But here's one clue: almost all of his victims looked alike. That's not due to porn lol...

2) "Forming and ideology" is not a logical step to committing mass murder of innocents. How many people have read the same texts, even perhaps formed an ideology around it...but never as much as killed an Islamic fly, nonetheless went on a wholesale slaughter spree? So why this one individual? Did he just understand the words better or something? lol...Or could it be that what actually set him off was not contained in the words that MILLIONS of people could have read without it leading to anything...but was contained within himself? Naaaaah.

YOU don't know how every single person operates and what forces, internal or external, is going to affect them.

There has yet to be a case like this one where it was proven and shown that some external factor set things in motion. The murderous plans are always in motion beforehand, in the person's mind. They relive it and relive it so that it becomes almost their true reality. There have been dozens upon dozens of cases where it was shown that internal factors played 95% of the role in the violence and actions. There have been studies conducted that show the same.

Here's another bit of questionable insight from you:

Yeah, as if you show any credentials to prove the validity of your point, otherwise. Who are you again? Oh yeah, another person expressing their opinion on the Tailgate.

Read my last post. Look it up on google if that's not enough. You're not gonna find any valid study done in forensic psychology that goes against what I'm saying. The bottom line, though, will be that the only external experiences that have even a slightly direct line to actions of this magnitude by an individual perpetrator are the types of external experiences that the person has no control over: they are being forced upon him, he is not willingly participating (the exception would be drug use).

But just for you, here's a study you can read up on and gain whatever conclusions from it that you desire:

Psychology of Terrorism

My theory falls under the Cognitive Theory, while yours falls more under the Drive Theory:

What are some of the main psychological theories that have been applied to understanding violence?

Drive theory (frustration-aggresion)

...The basic premise of the frustration-aggression (FA) hypothesis is twofold: (1) Aggression is always produced by frustration, and (2) Frustration always produces aggression. When subjected to empirical scrutiny, however, research has shown that frustration does not inevitably lead to aggression. Sometimes, for example, it results in problem solving or dependent behaviors. And aggression is known to occur even in the absence of frustration. Thus it is not reasonable to view frustration alone as a necessary and sufficient causal factor...Berkowitz (1989 ) posited that it was only “aversive” frustration that would lead to aggression. The newly proposed progression was that frustration would lead to anger, and that anger – in the presence of aggressive cues – would lead to aggression. While subsequent research findings have, at times, been inconsistent or contradictory, “it is reasonable to conclude that aversive stimuli do facilitate, but probably not instigate, aggressive behavior”

My reading of this: The frustration felt and promoted/encouraged from this guy reading anti-Islamic twaddle would NOT have lead to aggression on his part...the only type of frustration that seems to play a role in aggression is aversive frustration. You could argue that the readings were "aversive" in that they kept pushing his buttons...but the type of aggressive result described here seems to point to it being directed at the person DOING the aversive act, which would be the blog writer lol. And usually aversive frustration deals with external actions that you don't have control over...reading the anti-islamic rantings wouldn't qualify.

Cognitive Theory

...The basic notion is that people interact with their environment based on how they perceive and interpret it. That is, people form an internal (cognitive) map of their external (social) environment, and these perceptions – rather than an objective external reality – determine their behavior....

...Two common cognitive/processing deficits found among people who are highly aggressive are: (1) an inability to generate non-aggressive solutions to conflicts (and lack of confidence in their ability to use them successfully) and (2) a perceptual hypersensitivity to hostile/aggressive cues in the environment, 11 particularly interpersonal cues . Crenshaw suggests that the principles of social cognition apply both to terrorists and to their organizations. She notes “the actions of terrorists are based on a subjective interpretation of the world rather than objective reality. Perceptions of the political and social environment are filtered through beliefs and attitudes that reflect experiences and memories."

My reading of this: it's the individual's internal subjective and warped perceptions that lead to how they view the world and the violence they choose to act on...and they go about bolstering their delusional perceptions with external things that they experience and remember. It need not be an accurate memory or perception of an event for it to suit their purposes. And the "perpetual hypersensitivity" would indicate that damn near ANYTHING could "set them off", as they are hypersensitive to their external environment. A woman not saying "gesundheit" after he sneezes could set someone like him off...should we spend time discussing the lack of civility in society and it's role in a mass murderer's actions because of it? lol...

It is extremely difficult to place that type of warped mentality and unrealistic perception inside an individual through written words...so trying to assign ANY level of blame to what he was reading is a fool's errand.

You wanna go look up some more? lol...Be my guest. But there's a start.

Long paragraph. All irrelevant. I never said one factor was the deciding factor in any of this.

No, what you said was this:

"Some people need something to set them off......For Manson, it was music and Helter Skelter."

First, Helter Skelter and music did NOT "set off" Manson lol...he merely used it as a manipulative prop to help sell his warped vision of the world to his "followers".

Second, the extremely long list of factors playing into Manson's development into a violent aggressor make the "set off" moment almost irrelevant...for under those conditions any number of things could have done the trick. Which, by the way, the REAL "set off" moment was apparently when he was kicked out of a drug house and denied drugs--or something close to that. He wanted revenge...that was the "set off" moment, not freakin' music. However, if you take Manson's words as holding the most validity, then you'd reach the conclusion that you did...which of course would be wrong.

BTW, the member of the Manson families were certainly influenced by rhetoric from Manson. The drugs helped, too.

Without the drugs, nothing else works. And again, NONE in the Manson Family were lone aggressors...they were part of a group, and thus that dynamic is different than what this guy apparently has done (he hasn't been connected to any group from what I know of). The influences/triggers in an individual acting alone are different from those who are part of a larger group structured around a goal of mass killings and violence.

Sure. I never said otherwise. Also, what's the point of you saying, "He would have used something else," if you were previously claiming that what a person reads, or hears, can't play a role in their actions?

I never said it was due to the song. I like Helter Skelter; I don't think it produces crazy rays.

This is a square peg, round hole argument. I only said that certain literature can provide an "inciting incident," a light-bulb moment, for some people where it all comes together, or where it slowly grinds its way into their psyche.

When we agree that any number things on a long list could have "set off" the Manson killings, then by definition we diminish the importance something like "Helter Skelter" and "music" played in the outcome and result...to the point of rendering them irrelevant to the discussion. the longer that list of possible "set off" moments, the more inane it becomes to believe that something set him off to begin with. Anyone talking about Manson and his motives and spends more than 15 seconds talking about "Helter Skelter" would be wasting their time.

It also distracts from those TRUE aspects that caused Manson and his followers to do what they did..."Helter Skelter" should be the answer to a Manson trivia question lol...not a point of argument in a discussion about the reasons for the crime.

Where did I say it did? Obviously Chapman had mental issues, which goes without saying. In his case, though, Salinger book accessorized his mental condition. Here is what Chapman himself said in a Larry King interview (regarding himself):

"CHAPMAN: On December 8, 1980 Mark David Chapman was a very confused person. He was literally living inside of a paperback novel, J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye." He was vacillating between suicide, between catching the first taxi home, back to Hawaii, between killing, as you said, an icon."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0009/30/lklw.00.html

Same answer as before: the book played no role in the crime he committed. Nothing in that book facilitated the murder he committed. Nothing. As I've been saying all along, people like this latch onto whatever they can that help them validate an already warped perception of the world. We shouldn't be in a hurry to validate anyone's belief that the particular "thing" these types latch on to should be scrutinized because someone DID latch onto them...because it could have been any one of an infinite number of things. It's in their nature to latch on to things and distort their true intent.

OK, you contradicted yourself here, it would seem. Care to clarify yourself? Do you mean that "big things do NOT cause or even lead to the types of violence we saw in this massacre."

I am not sure what you're trying to say at this point.

Where did you or I say "big things"? lol

What I said was "little" things can indeed effect everyone. But since the discussion is about whether or not the anti-islamic rantings played any real role in the massacre, I felt it necessary to point out that "little" things--like reading a blog lol--do not lead to an act like this. We would do well to not focus so much on that, as it played no real role in things.

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 12:20 AM ----------

I'd like to read that research, but I will say this; Reading is...... an internal action.

No, it's not lol...

It requires an external experience, unless it's a make-believe book that is only written and accessible in someone's mind.

A book is not read to you, it is internalized by your brain and you interpret it.

The words you read ARE external...as are the thoughts behind those words, since they were formed inside the mind of someone else.

The question being, how is the book leading you? When you read Mein Kampf, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bible, there is a moral or goal to the reading. The same happens when someone gives a speech.

The question specific to this guy, though, is: was there a warped, subjective perception on the world already in place when he latched onto whatever writings he latched onto...or was the warped perception instigated by regular exposure to "hateful", "angry" political rhetoric?

If it was the first one, then he would have latched on to anything he could have to validate his perceptions, rightly or wrongly. If it was the second one...well, as I said there's been no proof that an individual will have their perceptions warped to that great a degree by reading someone else's words.

An extreme example is the fact that your parents can tell you everyday that you need to kill all Muslims. For a kid with anti-social tendencies, are you saying that has no "significant" role in shaping the kids behavior? Why is it that racist parents tend to have racist children?

Again...that is more akin to a "cell" of people acting together to warp minds to a singular belief. That is not an individual reading words that were never meant for him specifically and being affected by them in a way that significantly leads to acts of violence. That's why I focus so much on emphasizing "individual" in my responses. A normal, rational person can have their thinking distorted from within a close group (and no group is closer than a family)...a person acting individually requires a completely different set of circumstances, and it's ridiculously rare for it to actually work.

Violence, and terrorism in this case, are the hallmarks of deranged people. But the question is what pushes them towards a certain outcome. We don't put the responsibility on the Geller and Co. for killing those people, we put it on Breivik. But we can acknowledge that when you peddle fear-mongering, extremist garbage, it may have a negative consequence on people. When you gain mainstream exposure and promote Islamophobia, it may impact people in a negative way. Seriously, this is not hard to understand.

We can only acknowledge that if it's true. But it's not. The whole correlation/causation argument would and should be at play, here. Guys like this may be more drawn to extreme rhetoric, but that does not assign a causal mechanism TO the rhetoric.

---------- Post added July-26th-2011 at 12:44 AM ----------

No, I read it. And I read it again. And it says the same thing to me as does your follow up response. You seem to completely dismiss the affects of words on people or as you prefer to look at it, singular persons.

I'll believe you read my post, even twice...but I can't believe you understood it by this response. So I "completely dismiss" the affects words have on people, eh? (or on an individual person lol)...That's not even slightly close to what I was saying.

Words. Will. Not. Play. A. Role. In. Any. Individual's. Act. Of. Extreme. Violence. To. Any. Significant. Degree.

That's what my post says. That does not say "words can't affect people". Nothing in there says that. Stop trying to convince yourself it does.

Although the fact that you have a psychologist and ex-fbi agent family members that agree with your stance is interesting. Perhaps in a pm you can explain the difference that would cause a nation to commit atrocities but not an individual that see's himself as part of a greater movement. I'd be interested in how you come by that opinion.

I can actually do that lol :yes:...on here, though, and for now, the differences are as simple as one has an entrenched support system of actual people and institutions that keeps the delusion active and can play a role in warping reality. Governments can enact laws, punish those who do not agree, control the radio and media, etc, etc...they can dish out rewards and curry favors to those who buy into the delusion. When someone else has control over your external experiences like governments do, and when others in your "group" (in this case, society) are actively promoting that delusion to you as well, it makes it easier to buy into and believe.

An individual has no support system, only what resides within his delusional mind. That's why they latch on to things to help validate their delusion, even if in reality, it does no such thing. It's how the human brain is wired...we NEED to believe our perceptions are real, and our brains will do all sorts of things to make sure that occurs. When we are alone in our delusion, our brain works overtime to do so...and it's extremely unhealthy. However, when we have an entire government and country doing what it can to convince us that the delusion is real, hoo, boy lol...

I am also curious though explosives and guns have been around for quite some time I have never heard of a massacre like this with a lone person prior to the second half of the 20th century. I am sure someone can point me to an example but I've never heard of one. I wonder why that is although I will admit a single persons lethality has greatly increased with the improvement in small arms rate of fire and knowledge of chemical mixtures to produce explosives. But then, news and opinions also have a higher rate of dispersion and range as well.

Well, it's not because the political rhetoric has gotten angrier, I can tell you that lol ...in some very real ways, the angry political rhetoric from hundreds of years ago would put the stuff we're putting out now to shame.

And yeah, there are examples of domestic terrorism from centuries ago. I actually read about one or two of them in one of those Life books, like the 100 Most Notorious Crimes In U.S. History or something like that...

edit:

Also Cali, I wonder if you read the passages that I listed form the book of Proverbs. I listed them not so much a a religious thing, but more to show that even in the old testament which was written over 2000 years ago that the power of words on an individual is acknowledged. It takes on even heavier meaning if you believe in the bible in that even God is telling you that words have the power to influence singular individuals and is warning against what is said.

I'm not bringing the bible into the discussion mainly because I think it's a mistake to take anything written in there as "proof" of anything. Also, I don't want to insult anyone who might have their faith based on strict interpretation of the bible.

[MrSilverMaC]

...

Ok Cali, so let me see if I have what you are saying down.

1) Words can and do affect people.

2) Words do not play any (or in your later posts "any significant") role in causing a person to lash out in a violent manner.

3) People who do things like what the norway terrorist has done do it solely based on their own mental instability caused by external actions towards them such as abuse or by some other factor other than words like chemical imbalance or schizophrenia.

4) The difference between a lone gunman/bomber and a national/ideological/religious movement is that words do carry weight in that context due to the groups ability to foster an environment where those words and ideas are presented almost constantly.

Is that basically correct, or am I still missing something?

If you feel I have missed something please quote one of your previous posts that I have responded to that shows exactly that point and tells what you mean in plain english.

I have gone back and read your responses to me again, as well as the original post of yours I quoted and I am still not seeing where what I perceive I am responding to differs greatly from what you you have posted multiple times now and judging from the responses from other posters regarding your points they see something similar. We've had a discussion like that before where you took issues with a single word in a post of mine and then later admitted that what I wrote and what I responded to were very similar to the point that there was almost no difference and it seems to me that this is a similar situation.

The question wasn't so much aimed at suggesting that the rhetoric is angrier, though I would say it's gotten relatively worse over say the last 20 years. My comment at the end spoke more to the fact that the rhetoric has a much easier time finding an audience given the speed with which it is spread and the amount of people who have access to it as opposed to say the 1800's or early to mid 20th century.

I'll have to google the early American stories of terrorism and see what I can find, I'm sure it's an interesting read.

As for the listed passages you are free not to respond regarding them which would allow you to keep the bible out of this discussion as well as interpret what they mean for yourself, but I think they make for interesting reading regarding your stance. But of course reading them or not is your choice.

On topic for a bit:

I saw on the bbc that they have lowered the number of people he killed on the island into the 70's. They apparently double counted some of the bodies in the wake. Not much in the way of good news, but at least it was slightly less horrible than originally thought.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

...

Ok Cali, so let me see if I have what you are saying down.

1) Words can and do affect people.

Yep :yes:

2) Words do not play any (or in your later posts "any significant") role in causing a person to lash out in a violent manner.

Not in the way this guy did, no...

3) People who do things like what the norway terrorist has done do it solely based on their own mental instability caused by external actions towards them such as abuse or by some other factor other than words like chemical imbalance or schizophrenia.

Not the part in the red, no. At least not completely (environment during the developmental stage can indeed play a role) I've stated that it is internal...I showed from a study that individuals like this nutcase might be hypersensitive to the perceived "aggressions" that exist in reality, or a whole bunch of internal issues too numerous to mention. It's not limited to 2-3 basic categories...but the inability to view the world in a realistic, objective way points to an internal cause.

4) The difference between a lone gunman/bomber and a national/ideological/religious movement is that words do carry weight in that context due to the groups ability to foster an environment where those words and ideas are presented almost constantly.

For lack of a better way of putting it, yes. It's like the difference between your own parents constantly telling you in a multitude of ways that Islam is an evil religion and all members of it deserve to die...and reading a pamphlet someone hands you on the street saying the same thing.

Is that basically correct, or am I still missing something?

If you feel I have missed something please quote one of your previous posts that I have responded to that shows exactly that point and tells what you mean in plain english.

Can't think of any right now...but obviously if I think you (or anyone) gets my posts wrong, I'll point it out lol ...

Seriously, though...if I hear/read one more person claim that I'm saying words don't affect people I'm gonna rip apart their keyboard and shove the Space bar up their left nostril.

If this Norway shooter/bomber were a recipe, he would probably look like this:

2 cups of inner demons

1 1/2 cups of inabilities to cope with realities in a healthy way

1/2 cup of abuse, drug or childhood

1/4 cup of possible biological abnormalities

1 cup of environmental issues in his home or neighborhood

1/4 cup of frustration and self esteem issues

1 Tbs of reading hateful political rhetoric* (optional)

* Economic duress, employment hardship, car problems, still in love with ex-girlfriend, and squeaky shoes can all be substituted for Hateful Political Rhetoric

Cook slowly at 325 degrees, stirring occasionally, for 10 years and serve

I have gone back and read your responses to me again, as well as the original post of yours I quoted and I am still not seeing where what I perceive I am responding to differs greatly from what you you have posted multiple times now and judging from the responses from other posters regarding your points they see something similar. We've had a discussion like that before where you took issues with a single word in a post of mine and then later admitted that what I wrote and what I responded to were very similar to the point that there was almost no difference and it seems to me that this is a similar situation.

From what I can tell, a few of you guys are somehow jumping to the conclusion that the only way I could reach my conclusions about the role hateful rhetoric played in this tragedy is if I believe words don't affect people. I've never said that, but it keeps getting assigned to me ...

The question wasn't so much aimed at suggesting that the rhetoric is angrier, though I would say it's gotten relatively worse over say the last 20 years. My comment at the end spoke more to the fact that the rhetoric has a much easier time finding an audience given the speed with which it is spread and the amount of people who have access to it as opposed to say the 1800's or early to mid 20th century.

Oh, I know...My response was using your comment/question as a jumping-off point to say that "angry political rhetoric" has been around in our society as long as the U.S. has been around, and it was far more hateful many times than it is now. I already know there will be some who will claim it's the alleged increase in this type of discourse that lead to this guy and his actions...of course the same was said with Timothy McVeigh as well..."hateful, angry right-wing rhetoric from hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh" was a rallying cry for a little while after that bombing. The fact that someone like McVeigh would have more than likely hated Rush was irrelevant to the discussion lol ...far easier to overlook the real issues and find a bogeyman to blame. We do it all the time.

I'm praying we don't get sucked into it again here.

I'll have to google the early American stories of terrorism and see what I can find, I'm sure it's an interesting read.

I keep thinking it was a bombing of a library or school or something. Guy had dynamite in the back of his cart...I think lol...don't have the book in front of me.

On topic for a bit:

I saw on the bbc that they have lowered the number of people he killed on the island into the 70's. They apparently double counted some of the bodies in the wake. Not much in the way of good news, but at least it was slightly less horrible than originally thought.

Small consolation indeed ...

[techboy]

So one post makes this thread an attack on the right-wing

Since you brought up the idea of straw men, it might be worth observing that I never suggested that this thread is an attack on the right wing. Mostly, I think of this thread as a place to share horror over the terrible events of a couple of days ago. In point of fact, I initially avoided commenting at all, because I didn't think it was appropriate to morph that purpose into a political/religious argument. I waited until the thread was completely different in tone, but I'm still not sure I did the right thing by participating in that change.

In any case, though, immediately after my "one" example somebody posted this:

I definitely agree with this.

So I guess it's more than one, right?

That's not really the point, though, in my mind. As I later clarified, I am more rejecting the idea that we can place material culpability for violence on purveyors of even very extreme rhetoric, if said purveyors do not call for (or imply the call for) violence.

As I already noted, there are some very drastic claims being made in the environmentalist movement about coal power, for example, but I wouldn't blame them if somebody took those warnings to heart and bombed a coal plant, even if that person quoted extensively those environmentalists, and I don't buy the idea that if one presents the situation as dire enough, that this is an implicit call for violence.

And yes, I'd suggest that some people inconsistently apply this standard. If the perpetrator in this case had been a Muslim, we'd be getting the standard "...but it's a religion of peace" drivel from some of the same people now claiming that right wing ideology cannot be blamed for this, just as we would be hearing that Islam cannot be blamed for the actions of radicals from some of the same people who now want to blame the right wing for priming the pump in this case.

This is not to suggest that being inconsistent makes one wrong, just that I find it rather ironic.

I think, though, that my initial impression that it's too soon to be doing anything other than grieving was correct, so I'm stepping back.