[RD] Toronto van attack

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, there was no ideology before society. That’s the whole point here fam.

Yet mass murder was still a possibility, and depending on how you separate small scale "war" from it happened.

No I’m not. All I’m doing is disputing your positive claim that American society actively shames mass murder.

I made no "actively shames" claim.

 

[inthesomeday]

There is a good reason for that; society generally looks down on and punishes mass murderers.

I made no "actively shames" claim.

Why are you always tryna do this man it never works

 

[Lexicus]

What kind of "ideology" existed in hunter-gatherer days, aside from the one where if the competition is too great you could kill people and take their stuff...without consequences if their defense didn't injure you?

I think we have different concepts of what 'ideology' means. In my undersatnding of the term it is literally impossible for humans to exist without ideology. So ideology has existed as long as humans have. It indeed likely predates homo sapiens.

Yet mass murder was still a possibility, and depending on how you separate small scale "war" from it happened.

There is quite conclusive archaeological evidence of mass murder from before agriculture. Judging from what we know about the ethnocentrism of virtually all pre-state, pre-urban societies, it is reasonable to conclude that these were mass murders in some sense "motivated" by an ideology that dehumanized everyone outside the group that carried it out. Also AFAIK evidence of prehistoric violence does not correlate well with evidence of environmental pressure/resource scarcity.

Why are you always tryna do this man it never works

This is the result of ambivalence about what exactly was meant by "looks down on and punishes." The problem is that you are both right! Our society encourages and even rewards mass murder, while also frowning on and punishing it!

Just look at Cruz, the Parkland shooter. In jail, facing the death penalty afaik, and yet....

The amount of fan mail the Parkland shooter is receiving is unreal

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that most people are more knee-jerk in their reactions than would be optimal. Same in this case. Yes, causing the death of others is never ok, and he will spend many years/decades in jail (possibly all his life? not sure). This doesn't mean that there is no place for empathy, despite wanting the just punishment (which i am sure he will get).

It is easy to say "he did this cause he is crazy". Sure, he is crazy. But crazy happens, and sometimes everyone has some of it as well, albeit of another type. This isn't an angelic society. People routinely vote for those who cause deaths on massive scale (multiple of 10, as in this case), so 'crazy' won't cut it.

 

[warpus]

We do have a large mental health problem in this country (and on this continent), and young males seem to be affected more than other groups, at least from what I've seen. We need more support systems in place so people with problems have a support mechanism in place. It's not going to solve all these issues but it would be a good start. However, right now there is still a lot of stigma and a lot of people don't get help because of it

 

[Kyriakos]

We do have a large mental health problem in this country (and on this continent), and young males seem to be affected more than other groups, at least from what I've seen. We need more support systems in place so people with problems have a support mechanism in place. It's not going to solve all these issues but it would be a good start. However, right now there is still a lot of stigma and a lot of people don't get help because of it

I suspect it is far worse in most european countries, than it is in Canada; the less developed a society is, the more stigma for mental illness.

Also, well done to the canadian police. We know how this would have ended if it was in the US.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Why are you always tryna do this man it never works

"Generally looks down on" and "actively shames" have different meanings in the English language. The difference isn't so subtle that what you're doing is reasonable.

I think we have different concepts of what 'ideology' means. In my undersatnding of the term it is literally impossible for humans to exist without ideology. So ideology has existed as long as humans have. It indeed likely predates homo sapiens.

When I look up the definition for this, I'm not convinced we can make this assumption.

Judging from what we know about the ethnocentrism of virtually all pre-state, pre-urban societies, it is reasonable to conclude that these were mass murders in some sense "motivated" by an ideology that dehumanized everyone outside the group that carried it out.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but are we sure the moral aspect of those societies carried the necessity for dehumanization? Couldn't "not our tribe" be enough for them? This is a real question, not a refutation.

 

[NovaKart]

In the USA there is access to mental health professionals for no charge or at reduced cost but the waiting time can be over a month long, it varies based on the area.

I'm really skeptical of the idea that American society celebrates mass murderers and the linked article from CNN showed Cruz receiving mail from Germany and England as well.

Whenever there's a mass killing that does not involve an Islamist radical many on the left are quick to declare it terrorism and to claim it would automatically be considered terrorism if the perpetrator were from a Middle Eastern background. The problem is, they are doing the exact same thing but declaring something terrorism based on their own bias rather than look at the specifics of the case. It may fit the definition of terrorism but don't rush to a conclusion because that's what you want it to be.

Based on what I see presented now, this man is no more a terrorist than Valerie Solanas.

 

[Kyriakos]

In the USA there is access to mental health professionals for no charge or at reduced cost but the waiting time can be over a month long, it varies based on the area.

I'm really skeptical of the idea that American society celebrates mass murderers and the linked article from CNN showed Cruz receiving mail from Germany and England as well.

Whenever there's a mass killing that does not involve an Islamist radical many on the left are quick to declare it terrorism and to claim it would automatically be considered terrorism if the perpetrator were from a Middle Eastern background. The problem is, they are doing the exact same thing but declaring something terrorism based on their own bias rather than look at the specifics of the case. It may fit the definition of terrorism but don't rush to a conclusion because that's what you want it to be.

Based on what I see presented now, this man is no more a terrorist than Valerie Solanas.

Novakart's posts: always the voice of sanity in the forum

 

[Lexicus]

When I look up the definition for this, I'm not convinced we can make this assumption.

From google, we get
i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Do you think it is possible for humans to exist without "a system of ideas and ideals"? Granted I don't know everything there is to know about developmental psychology so there may be a point when infants do not have these things, but in general...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but are we sure the moral aspect of those societies carried the necessity for dehumanization? Couldn't "not our tribe" be enough for them? This is a real question, not a refutation.

My point is that "not our tribe" and "dehumanizing" were essentially overlapping justifications judging from what I know about the anthropology of pre-state, pre-urban cultures. There is a very common phenomenon that ethnic groups will refer to themselves as something that basically means the same as "people" in their own language.

Matisoff wrote, "A group's autonym is often egocentric, equating the name of the people with 'mankind in general,' or the name of the language with 'human speech'."[6]For example, various Native American autonyms are sometimes explained to English readers as having literal translations of "original people" or "normal people", with implicit contrast to other first nations as not original or not normal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym

Where this runs into unambiguous "dehumanization" is, I suppose, a matter of opinion and debate. But humans seem to have evolved a very strong aversion to killing other humans, so I would argue that killing itself may be evidence that some degree of dehumanization has occurred.

 

[Kyriakos]

From google, we get
i·de·ol·o·gy
ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Do you think it is possible for humans to exist without "a system of ideas and ideals"? Granted I don't know everything there is to know about developmental psychology so there may be a point when infants do not have these things, but in general...

Should be noted that, in most settings, an ideology is linking people who have not the same ideas but the sense they have the same or similar ideas. Which is also important due to the tie to personal frustrations. So while an end point may be seen as an ideology, it usually (moreso when on a non-academic level) what is deemed an ideology is more of a fix for very individual issues. Particularly when the ideology is presented as some negative one. TLDR: imo this act (the deaths by this person) is not ideology-driven at all. It is mental health related.

 

[Lexicus]

TLDR: imo this act (the deaths by this person) is not ideology-driven at all. It is mental health related.

Why can't it be both?

 

[Kyriakos]

Why can't it be both?

I think that 'ideology' would at best be a mask for the mental health issue, and thus misleading to choose as the reason itself. Furthermore, as noted (although very generally) 'ideology' tends to mean something not very concrete when used in the news-media or other casual setting (like we use it here too). It isn't some doctrine with principles and discussion, but an umbrella. A bit like religions, i suppose, but even more vague and fix-like.

 

[inthesomeday]

I think that 'ideology' would at best be a mask for the mental health issue, and thus misleading to choose as the reason itself.

Do you believe this killing would have occurred without the killer being exposed to incel-ism?

 

[Lexicus]

I'm really skeptical of the idea that American society celebrates mass murderers and the linked article from CNN showed Cruz receiving mail from Germany and England as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Killers

Based on what I see presented now, this man is no more a terrorist than Valerie Solanas.

Based on what I know this was clearly an act of inceldom-motivated terrorism. What do you know that I don't know?

I think that 'ideology' would at best be a mask for the mental health issue, and thus misleading to choose as the reason itself. Furthermore, as noted (although very generally) 'ideology' tends to mean something not very concrete when used in the news-media or other casual setting (like we use it here too). It isn't some doctrine with principles and discussion, but an umbrella. A bit like religions, i suppose, but even more vague and fix-like.

To me this distinction really only makes sense if we want to assert that the guy was mentally incompetent to be responsible for his own actions. If that's not the case, then he can be mentally ill and the attack can still be ideologically motivated. I'm not sure why we seem to think of the mentally ill as given to violence when they are actually both less violent and more likely to be victims of violence than the general population.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do you believe this killing would have occurred without the killer being exposed to incel-ism?

I can't know that (maybe if we had more info...). But even if that played a large role (?) it still would be something which served as to enable (or further enable etc) a tendency, not be the cause the tendency was there in the first place, no?

 

[Synobun]

You could make that argument about any ideology-motivated killing, thereby negating the term and purpose of 'terrorism'. What's to gain by doing this?

 

[inthesomeday]

I can't know that (maybe if we had more info...). But even if that played a large role (?) it still would be something which served as to enable a tendency, not be the cause the tendency was there in the first place, no?

I would argue that it is, on the grounds that there is seldom a mass killing without a violent ideological root, which to me points to at least a really strong correlation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do you think it is possible for humans to exist without "a system of ideas and ideals"? Granted I don't know everything there is to know about developmental psychology so there may be a point when infants do not have these things, but in general...

It's not clear to me that pre-agricultural humans had a coherent system of ideals. Maybe that's settled science and I just haven't seen it, I'm certainly no expert on this, but absent that it's not a given.

My point is that "not our tribe" and "dehumanizing" were essentially overlapping justifications judging from what I know about the anthropology of pre-state, pre-urban cultures. There is a very common phenomenon that ethnic groups will refer to themselves as something that basically means the same as "people" in their own language.

Ah okay. "Not one of us is good enough justification" either way. Fair enough.

 

[Kyriakos]

To me this distinction really only makes sense if we want to assert that the guy was mentally incompetent to be responsible for his own actions. If that's not the case, then he can be mentally ill and the attack can still be ideologically motivated. I'm not sure why we seem to think of the mentally ill as given to violence when they are actually both less violent and more likely to be victims of violence than the general population.

I agree, but there is something else important:

some mentally ill are less prone to violence. Some other mentally ill are actually more prone to violence. Mental illness itself (afaik) isn't the main factor, but some mentally ill people indeed can be very dangerous and up to lethal; not all are docile.

I would argue that it is, on the grounds that there is seldom a mass killing without a violent ideological root, which to me points to at least a really strong correlation.

I am not sure. I think this isn't so, though. Certainly ideology can be a facilitator of crime, up to murder. But i don't think it can itself be a cause, really. One would suspect that in most cases it will take something more. Particularly when it is one person and not some ongoing war where people become animals.

 

[Lexicus]

It's not clear to me that pre-agricultural humans had a coherent system of ideals. Maybe that's settled science and I just haven't seen it, I'm certainly no expert on this, but absent that it's not a given.

There is no requirement that the system be coherent, consciously thought-out, or any other qualification really. We all have ideology, some are just unaware of having it.

some mentally ill are less prone to violence. Some other mentally ill are actually more prone to violence. Mental illness itself (afaik) isn't the main factor, but some mentally ill people indeed can be very dangerous and up to lethal; not all are docile.

Yes, it certainly depends on the diagnosis.