"They excuse the fact that he killed people, because he is attractive" seems to be a sanity-saving reading of the anecdotes, here. The much more straightforward reason is "They are attracted to him because he is a killer."
You could find a hundred kids at MIT who fit his general description. What's your estimate on the mean number of Facebook groups created by fawning fangirls they each have?
How the FUCK does that get modded down? Because it might distract from a trivial topic with discussion about something serious and real? God forbid...
Of course it's extremely easy to say, the heck with it. I'm just going to adapt myself to the structures of power and authority and do the best I can within them. Sure, you can do that. But that's not acting like a decent person. You can walk down the street and be hungry. You see a kid eating an ice cream cone and you notice there's no cop around and you can take the ice cream cone from him because you're bigger and walk away. You can do that. Probably there are people who do. We call them "pathological." On the other hand, if they do it within existing social structures we call them "normal." But it's just as pathological. It's just the pathology of the general society. -- Noam Chomsky
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -- Voltaire
Just because it's a phenomenon you don't have experience doesn't make it trivial. I would argue that there's a link between these teenage girls and our culture's depiction of the romantic side of 'bad boys.' I know far too many young women who stay in abusive or worthless relationships because they think they can fix the guy, or that deep inside the guy is just misunderstood. Where does that instinct come from?
Conversely, think about how easy it is to write someone off because he or she looks like a low-life. Why do we always try to understand the motivations of attractive and female killers, while other segments of society are ignored entirely?
Obama's good-looking, but people don't admire him because of his policy on drones. We don't have videos of him launching a drone strike and melting away into the crowd. The parent raises a good point, but it's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
Just because it's a phenomenon you don't have experience doesn't make it trivial.
Just because I think it's trivial doesn't mean I don't experience it.. but point taken, it's not trivial. Seeing that little comment about Obama grayed out without any reply annoyed me, I flew off the handle there sorry.
I know far too many young women who stay in abusive or worthless relationships because they think they can fix the guy, or that deep inside the guy is just misunderstood. Where does that instinct come from?
I guess knowing what you want can matter more than what exactly you want, at least to people who themselves are even weaker and easily impressed. Also, someone who is passionate about random or even evil stuff will often be more fascinating than someone who is lukewarm or cowardly about saving the world, I think that much is obvious.
Also, for every female who is into a serial killer, a thousand are into Justin Bieber. So I'm not even sure there is such an "instinct". There may be broken females who had shitty fathers, though, and to those, the abuse they know might be preferable to the liberty and decision making they never learned. But that's just armchair psychology, I don't really know. But oh boy did I ponder this, I had my fair share of being treated like a doormat for being friendly, as well as sexual offers for being narcissistic - I don't understand it, either. I kinda paused caring about it, maybe it will come to me in a dream. (or a HN reply ^^)
Obama's good-looking, but people don't admire him because of his policy on drones.
Well, before we have even the faintest idea how this stuff works and is or isn't connected, who is to say? Does it matter what he officially says? If this stuff is, for example, "genes speaking to genes" ("Why do lionesses like lions who kill the children they had with another male? Why wouldn't we find something similar in humans, if not something way more advanced?"), wouldn't it matter way more what he does? I often wondered this about Hitler, if some people didn't actually (at least subconsciously) notice and agree to his hate and nihilism, even though they picked up his rhetoric and euphemisms. Are people really that easily misled? Or are they just rationalizing?
We don't have videos of him launching a drone strike and melting away into the crowd.
Exactly. That's how much more slick he is; not how much less violent. In the same way, a mafia boss might be more attractive than a thug on the payroll of the same mafia boss, even though physically much weaker, and more refined in behaviour.
The biggest distinction is that he has been entrusted with the authority to order the deaths of people. No one gave Tsarnaev carte blanche to kill. About 66 million people gave it to Obama.
That's not a very big distinction at all if you hold the realatively prominent view that the masses are stupid and manipulated (their average IQ is 100, for God's sake!).
Perhaps if you hadn't used average IQ as a measure of the populations ability to decide on a leader I might have been able to take this comment seriously.
It is really no harder to manipulate or indoctrinate someone with a high IQ. It's not a measure of resistance to the former.
Of course, a perfectly reasonable question is "how many people does it take to give someone the right to kill?". If 66 million is enough, is 50 million? 10 million? How about a hundred thousand? Which countries, therefore, have leaders with the moral backing to do so, and which are too small.
The idea that popular support makes murder acceptable is ludicrous in and of itself, if you doubt this look at our depictions of Hitler.
I like the tone of your comment, but I'm not really sure about the contents... A high IQ means you're better able to make connections, so it should be easier for you to spot that there's something foul, something not quite right... Do you have some proof that manipulating intelligent people is just as easy?
I agree with everything that comes after this statement.
I'm not saying that President Obama has the right to kill, really. The right to kill is a really difficult moral question, though not in the case of Tsarnaev.
Obama has been given the authority to kill along the officially legislated channels of his office. So, there is the distinction: Dzokhar Tsarnaev had no authority to do what he did. What he did was also clearly immoral.
President Obama has the authority. What he's doing is questionably immoral. It's also not the only thing he does that affects people in a material way good or bad.
A hypothetical scenario - someone straps bombs to himself and detonates in the middle of a crowd. I think you'd agree that this is "clearly immoral" too? But to the other members of the terrorist cell this is either a moral thing to do or at least "questionably immoral", otherwise they'd have left the organization.
This is the relativity of moral decisions and the only way out is to try to define morality in absolute terms, which has resulted in many religions and philosophical works. The purest (i.e. simplest) form of a moral framework is that of Jainism - it promotes full restrictions on all forms of violence except when necessary for survival (e.g. a farmer killing a farm animal to feed his family).
This may seem like common sense, but it helps that it's defined in a simple form. This is why we don't agree with Tsarnaev or terrorist groups - what they do is not necessary for survival, it serves other purposes. This is why we sometimes just as easily don't agree with president Obama's choices. It has nothing to do with "proper channels", "authority" or any of those words.
I've felt this myself - said to myself and others a number of times, "I kind of feel bad for him" ... "it was really his older brother that was the psycho villain."
I would contribute that in addition to superficial qualities which may have swayed my judgment more than I've been aware, the mostly-unchanged narrative since the day of his capture has been that his older brother was the real sociopath/nutjob... that they both had poor family support and appear to have been vulnerably "alone" in the US... that Dzhokhar would have looked up to and depended on his brother, and that in a way Dzhokhar may not be an arch-villain so much as a treacherously loyal younger brother duped into acting as a sociopath/nutjob.
Presumably, we'll hear words from Dzhokhar himself in the future and come to second-guess our current judgments, but until then, his silence does himself a favor.
That all said... I do wonder how much my story above is really the majority of the thought process I went through, or whether it's just a shallow justification for a superficial judgment.
Thats why one should be skeptical with "public opinion" that is often taken into account in making decisions such as for example science or bio-ethics. Informed or expert opinion is better.
Reminds me of a conversation my friend and I had on the same subject. "He seemed intelligent, talented, attractive, well-adjusted - why would he throw everything away?" By far the easiest story to tell was that of a disturbed older brother coercing his younger brother into an act of twisted loyalty. But that narrative was created by the pictures...a halo effect run awry.
I am pretty sure I would have thought "hipster douchebag tool" based on his photo, even without the bombing, rather than attractive, but it's admittedly hard to test this scientifically now that he's so closely associated with the jihadist murders in my mind.
I didn't feel sympathy for Tsarnaev because of his cute face. I felt sympathy because his case is under the jurisdiction of Carmen Ortiz, and from Aaron Swartz we know what happens to people who cross Carmen Ortiz.
No. From his friends' improvised performance art piece, "How Not to Destroy Evidence," I'm guessing that Dzokhar deserves to have the book thrown at him.
It's just that it should be the book that's thrown at him. Legally. Ortiz has a history of trying to win at all costs, even if it would destroy the lives of harmless people.
I don't really care about Dzokhar. I worry about the continual erosion of civil rights. Used to be that being an American citizen meant something. It meant having the rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution. If the Bill of Rights does not apply to Dzokhar, then it doesn't apply to anybody.
This guy is conflating empathy with something else. Not sure what the word for the something else is, but it's when you're charmed by someone attractive for no good reason. That isn't empathy.
Point well taken but don't we also communicate with our facial expressions something greater than our genes? You are born with the color of your skin but you are not born with the ability to listen to others, and listening is a state of being generally communicated with your facial expressions.
I won't take this as far as it being a good idea to empathize with Tsarnaev but there are definitely important aspects of human communication one has to ignore to suggest facial expressions are as arbitrary as skin color.
Dont feel sorry for him, he has a brain , did not use it that much.He could have been anything he wanted , he seems handsome and smart , yet he chosed to kill for nothing. He is responsible for his own mistakes and should pay the price. Violence is never a solution. He hates what USA is doing abroad ? then what he did wont change anything , it will just bring more hatred toward the muslim community in US. The right way to do things is to get political , in a non violent fashion , freedom of speech is here for a reason, Killing is not freedom of speech.
I DNRTA, but I was listening to the radio and the lyrics sung were sung to the contrary but I wasn't sure which one I agree with: "By a lady in black / And I held my tongue / As she told me 'Son, / Fear is the heart of love'".
Not sure what to make of the number 72 being featured in the new Star Trek film though since I only read the plot on Wikipedia.
Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.
But as the words are leaving his lips,
A noise comes from behind.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead.
I feel bad because this is not about religion or someone's deep convictions. It's about politics and religious bullying turning people vulnerable to it, who, in other circumstances could have lived unremarkable, moderately happy, lives, into wannabe mass murderers. I feel bad for the victims, who did nothing to deserve what happened, and for the society that tried to integrate an immigrant family and failed without really doing anything wrong to them.
I feel bad because I can't quite get rid of the feeling all this could have been easily avoided.
31 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 67.2 ms ] threadYou could find a hundred kids at MIT who fit his general description. What's your estimate on the mean number of Facebook groups created by fawning fangirls they each have?
Of course it's extremely easy to say, the heck with it. I'm just going to adapt myself to the structures of power and authority and do the best I can within them. Sure, you can do that. But that's not acting like a decent person. You can walk down the street and be hungry. You see a kid eating an ice cream cone and you notice there's no cop around and you can take the ice cream cone from him because you're bigger and walk away. You can do that. Probably there are people who do. We call them "pathological." On the other hand, if they do it within existing social structures we call them "normal." But it's just as pathological. It's just the pathology of the general society. -- Noam Chomsky
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. -- Voltaire
Conversely, think about how easy it is to write someone off because he or she looks like a low-life. Why do we always try to understand the motivations of attractive and female killers, while other segments of society are ignored entirely?
Obama's good-looking, but people don't admire him because of his policy on drones. We don't have videos of him launching a drone strike and melting away into the crowd. The parent raises a good point, but it's not exactly relevant to this discussion.
Just because I think it's trivial doesn't mean I don't experience it.. but point taken, it's not trivial. Seeing that little comment about Obama grayed out without any reply annoyed me, I flew off the handle there sorry.
I know far too many young women who stay in abusive or worthless relationships because they think they can fix the guy, or that deep inside the guy is just misunderstood. Where does that instinct come from?
I guess knowing what you want can matter more than what exactly you want, at least to people who themselves are even weaker and easily impressed. Also, someone who is passionate about random or even evil stuff will often be more fascinating than someone who is lukewarm or cowardly about saving the world, I think that much is obvious.
Also, for every female who is into a serial killer, a thousand are into Justin Bieber. So I'm not even sure there is such an "instinct". There may be broken females who had shitty fathers, though, and to those, the abuse they know might be preferable to the liberty and decision making they never learned. But that's just armchair psychology, I don't really know. But oh boy did I ponder this, I had my fair share of being treated like a doormat for being friendly, as well as sexual offers for being narcissistic - I don't understand it, either. I kinda paused caring about it, maybe it will come to me in a dream. (or a HN reply ^^)
Obama's good-looking, but people don't admire him because of his policy on drones.
Well, before we have even the faintest idea how this stuff works and is or isn't connected, who is to say? Does it matter what he officially says? If this stuff is, for example, "genes speaking to genes" ("Why do lionesses like lions who kill the children they had with another male? Why wouldn't we find something similar in humans, if not something way more advanced?"), wouldn't it matter way more what he does? I often wondered this about Hitler, if some people didn't actually (at least subconsciously) notice and agree to his hate and nihilism, even though they picked up his rhetoric and euphemisms. Are people really that easily misled? Or are they just rationalizing?
We don't have videos of him launching a drone strike and melting away into the crowd.
Exactly. That's how much more slick he is; not how much less violent. In the same way, a mafia boss might be more attractive than a thug on the payroll of the same mafia boss, even though physically much weaker, and more refined in behaviour.
It is really no harder to manipulate or indoctrinate someone with a high IQ. It's not a measure of resistance to the former.
Of course, a perfectly reasonable question is "how many people does it take to give someone the right to kill?". If 66 million is enough, is 50 million? 10 million? How about a hundred thousand? Which countries, therefore, have leaders with the moral backing to do so, and which are too small.
The idea that popular support makes murder acceptable is ludicrous in and of itself, if you doubt this look at our depictions of Hitler.
I agree with everything that comes after this statement.
Obama has been given the authority to kill along the officially legislated channels of his office. So, there is the distinction: Dzokhar Tsarnaev had no authority to do what he did. What he did was also clearly immoral.
President Obama has the authority. What he's doing is questionably immoral. It's also not the only thing he does that affects people in a material way good or bad.
This is the relativity of moral decisions and the only way out is to try to define morality in absolute terms, which has resulted in many religions and philosophical works. The purest (i.e. simplest) form of a moral framework is that of Jainism - it promotes full restrictions on all forms of violence except when necessary for survival (e.g. a farmer killing a farm animal to feed his family).
This may seem like common sense, but it helps that it's defined in a simple form. This is why we don't agree with Tsarnaev or terrorist groups - what they do is not necessary for survival, it serves other purposes. This is why we sometimes just as easily don't agree with president Obama's choices. It has nothing to do with "proper channels", "authority" or any of those words.
Their average IQ is 100 by definition. If everyone got twice as smart overnight, the average IQ would still be 100.
I would contribute that in addition to superficial qualities which may have swayed my judgment more than I've been aware, the mostly-unchanged narrative since the day of his capture has been that his older brother was the real sociopath/nutjob... that they both had poor family support and appear to have been vulnerably "alone" in the US... that Dzhokhar would have looked up to and depended on his brother, and that in a way Dzhokhar may not be an arch-villain so much as a treacherously loyal younger brother duped into acting as a sociopath/nutjob.
Presumably, we'll hear words from Dzhokhar himself in the future and come to second-guess our current judgments, but until then, his silence does himself a favor.
That all said... I do wonder how much my story above is really the majority of the thought process I went through, or whether it's just a shallow justification for a superficial judgment.
They get prosecuted, kill themselves in angst, and then are unjustifiably made into martyrs by the tech community?
It's just that it should be the book that's thrown at him. Legally. Ortiz has a history of trying to win at all costs, even if it would destroy the lives of harmless people.
I don't really care about Dzokhar. I worry about the continual erosion of civil rights. Used to be that being an American citizen meant something. It meant having the rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution. If the Bill of Rights does not apply to Dzokhar, then it doesn't apply to anybody.
I won't take this as far as it being a good idea to empathize with Tsarnaev but there are definitely important aspects of human communication one has to ignore to suggest facial expressions are as arbitrary as skin color.
Not sure what to make of the number 72 being featured in the new Star Trek film though since I only read the plot on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwells_Silver_Hammer
I feel bad because I can't quite get rid of the feeling all this could have been easily avoided.