EDIT: I'm not denying agency or free will, I'm just expressing the belief that you are the product of your environment. I like the saying that an individual will tend towards being the average of their friends. If all of your friends are into running, you'll probably end up being into running. If all of your friends are into music, you'll probably end up interested in music. Certain books, movies, or other cultural experiences can affect individuals in differing, significant ways. All of these forces act on people to create who they are tomorrow.
There's no statement about free will, in a strong sense, in there. It's all about social and cultural context, and brownian motion. He's still responsible for his actions. I would reserve the term "human monster" for measurable psychopaths. Those do exist, and are a different matter entirely.
Obviously when you've gotten to this point, it's time to apply the law, not justify things away.
Acknowledging that we live in a material world and there are multiple causes for things is incredibly minor by comparison, and isn't an ideological basis for carrying out terror attacks. Causes aren't the same as reasons.
But I agree, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that he did make the choice to be here today.
[1]One of the many is HN-aligned Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will
The second is that people are fundamentally bad and that external forces are required to keep them from doing bad things. I think the more you look at the world the more you find this second postulate is the right one, and your looking in the wrong direction for justification.
By the way, if we're talking about "fundamental" qualities of a person -- from a biological standpoint, there is some evidence for a genetic propensity toward 'good' (e.g. altruism) or 'bad' (e.g. violent) behavior. But the vast majority of people land somewhere in the middle.
And explanation is not the same as moral justification.
I think compulsory public schools and undergraduate classroom-based colleges are very repressive against individuals, without fluid and free avenues for grievances to be aired and needs to be met. Sit up and shut up. The answer has been to use psychiatric drugs, punitive incarceration and behavior modification against individuals, rather than addressing broader social issues.
Partisan bickering between politicians about short-term reactionary policies sidetracks us. Gun control, enhanced interrogation, etc. -- those are not addressing the real underlying issues, and are just kicking the can further down the road until there's another attack.
I do not find it a coincidence that most of these young people accused of mass shootings or acts of terrorism, are current or recent members of our school system. I would absolutely explode and probably go to prison if I had to deal with today's zero-tolerance school systems.
There is something about mass public education which diminishes the individual, and makes small local corrections impossible because there are no outlets for grievance or ways to meet existential needs. As a result, anger, anxiety and depression build up in a person until s/he has no other outlet than to hurt others, no matter what the personal costs.
I find it very sad that media focus on whether suspects are members of certain "groups", or whether suspects have been labeled with pseudoscientific psychiatric labels, or whether their parents were "good" or "fit", when really, it's a much larger social context, and public institutions, which lead to the behavior.
A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595230769
The War on Kids: http://www.thewaronkids.com/
Saying they are victims and suggesting that pity be given them is wrong. It insults the real victims in this tragedy.
But the river bed hemming it in is
Termed violent by no one.
- Bertolt BrechtThe younger brother's "V Kontakte" page has some stuff that shows him in a bit different light compared to his twitter account. Perhaps because it was in Russian he was a bit more revealing. There he was a member of several Islamic groups (not exactly extremist ones, just in general Islam oriented). He also posted few comments and even a joke that sort of indicated how Chechens have been treated, the joke goes like this: "The Question: Chechen, Ingush and Dagestani are in the car, who is driving the car? The Answer: police".
What I think happened is that the older brother could not adjust quite well, and had some beef with his relatives as they were not too close. So these two brothers were sort of marinating in their own insanity. The older one could not fit in, probably felt like a failure and was a good candidate for a brainwash. The younger was another good candidate, their parents are still in Dagestan, both brothers lived alone.
I think it is a very complicated case and I think they acted alone, because they lost it alone at some point. Left to themselves they were easy prey to propaganda machine. I personally think it is extremely sad case for every single person involved including victims, their families, bombers and their families. The only winners are those who are spreading hate and brainwashing vulnerable people at the lowest point of their lives.
The younger brother was just too much under the influence of the elder, it appears from what I've read. Maybe he looked up to him, and just followed him blindly. Who knows.
As long as we keep figuring out ways to hate each other, we'll keep figuring out ways to kill each other.
In short, it's unclear whether they were actually involved with any organized jihad groups or just developed a personal obsession with the ideas and copied the methods.
edit: Carmen Ortiz (prosecutor in Aaron Swartz case and now Boston Bombing/Manhunt) confirms use of public safety exemption
On twitter a lot of people are essentially saying "Good, now we'll get answers." I'm sorry to say I don't believe there is typically anything satisfying about the answers of people who become deranged. Maybe this time, but if reading about madmen past is any guide, its very unlikely that we will be enlightened by any testimony.
And I think that's exactly right. The younger suspect seems by all accounts to be a smart young man. It's important that we try to understand what drove him to do something so terrible, even as we denounce it.
I read it the same way.
Though, I don't think it's about literally learning from any individual, but to attempt to understand the underlying mechanisms.
Much of the worst evil in history has been committed in service to a hypothetical greater good, or in retribution against very real wrongs. Germany had serious grievances in their treatment after WWI, for example. Communism, including Stalinism and Maoism, was a response against an extremely unjust social and economic order. Just because you've been wronged and victimized doesn't give you free reign to commit wrongs yourself.
Answer is really simple: in his own world /subculture he is a hero, a martyr and his name is being mentioned worldwide.
It was awful to see someone be so wrong about a person, as it became more and more certain that he was indeed one of the people involved in the bombing.
edit: I guess only 1 cop was killed?
1. He was a trained professional 2. He knew their hand, their next move even 3. He was an outed cop on a rampage based on inequality in the ranks of the LAPD
I don't think Dorner was ever going to be brought in alive, the LAPD didn't want him to have a soap box to preach from or to give him hero status. I remember shaking my head as I listened to police scanner while they started to set the cabin on fire.
This was a scared confused kid hiding in a boat with the nation watching and wanting to hear what he had to say. The other seemed more like a shut it up, sweep it under the rug, the guy is a nut, let's all just forget this happened kinda thing.
He would get in front of the podium, say only what he wanted the police to say, then refused questions and immediately ended the conference. With as much misinformation that the media had already spread that evening, and over the previous week, I was pleased to see the, "...now STFU we'll BBL" stance of the Boston Police.
Even if there's a manhunt, shelter in place order, and an officer with an assault rifle on every corner, life will go on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quc-iQ96R0
To edit and elaborate: they shut down a large portion of New England, affecting millions of people. Amtrak service, for example, was suspended north of New York City at 12:30pm today. Private taxi service in the Boston Metro area shut down until 11am. Other public transit, such as the T, shut down for most of the day. People didn't go to work.
I know it sounds callous, considering how many died or were maimed, but we now have to consider that a couple of pressure cookers are on par with hurricanes, blizzards and power blackouts when it comes to anesthetizing the North East corridor. I think we should think about this.
No, "they" really didn't. Life was pretty much normal outside of 128.
I do know that much of Boston had no choice but to take a day off on Friday. I know the Bruins game was cancelled, and that Comic Con was "postponed" and likely cancelled because of the difficulty of re-booking the conference center anytime before next year.
Not even considering the salaries and overtime of the officers involved, it is not wrong to say that this manhunt may have cost hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in economic losses. For example, some of the speculation from The Washington Post this afternoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/t...
This is as if an entire city went into anaphylaxis.
[1]https://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/scanner-audio-from-wa...
Edit: Mulugeta, I guess, is how you spell it. I certainly didn't hear a first name, though, when I was listening, just the last name plus spelling of it.
I'm wondering what ever happened with that.. any reason WHY?
