The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You know, before those things, there was no violence...And death metal has the word death in it..

*Hits GF* Sorry, i watched Kill Bill last night.

Thats ok Ukko
*Cuts Ukko down with his Double lightsabre* Sorry, I'm playing SW:TOR at the moment....

[Womble]

Can you elaborate on "Forces of Darkness" for me here?
So far I have heard:-
Violent movies
Video Games (esp, but not limited to FPS's and MMOLRPG's)
Rap music
Death metal

Any more you want to add?

What I find *intensely* curious about this whole affair is everyone wants to point to *one single causative influence* and the fact is, you cannot.

That is a large part of the problem, yes. Any attempt at solution is driven by a kind of moral panic that isn't conductive to proper analysis of what is wrong and how to fix it.

I've been reading up for years on psychology, behavioral economics and game theory, and the more I read, the more I am convinced that 99% of political analysis is not just wrong, but completely bonkers, largely because they're trying to treat people as rationally-motivated beings who act on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. It just isn't how the world works.

Violent content in music, video games and movies DOES play a role in the society's levels of violence. The influence is not as immediate and straightforward as most people think when they handwave the issue away as implausible, but it is very real because it contributes to social acceptability of violence. I find the tendency of modern movies and video games to "humanize" the bad guys and to pursue moral ambiguity as a virtue downright creepy. Oh look, we're so sophisticated, we are so convinced that everyone has their own truth that we will let you seek yours through playing slavers, assassins, bank heist crews and carjackers. And on TV, you have Dexter- perhaps the culmination of the tendency to humanize, rationalize and excuse psychopatic violence. Engaging with that kind of mass culture lowers the subconscious threshhold of permissible behavior in our minds whether we are aware of it or not.

Gun ownership is also a different kind of problem than most people think. Availability of guns is not ipso facto a cause of violence, but the attitude to guns and to gun ownership can be. I think the problem in the US is the treatment of guns as an entitlement rather than a responsibility. The right to own guns is not sufficiently linked to the requirements to store, handle and use them responsibly. Were it up to me I would have conditioned gun ownership on mandatory training every 3-4 months, give police the right to conduct random inspections of how the guns are stored in the house and perhaps require gun owners to spend at least one evening a week as assistance to police- the more frequent the reminders of moral and legal responsibility, the less likely people will be to misuse the guns they own.

[Gatefan1976]

That is a large part of the problem, yes. Any attempt at solution is driven by a kind of moral panic that isn't conductive to proper analysis of what is wrong and how to fix it.

I've been reading up for years on psychology, behavioral economics and game theory, and the more I read, the more I am convinced that 99% of political analysis is not just wrong, but completely bonkers, largely because they're trying to treat people as rationally-motivated beings who act on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. It just isn't how the world works.

I wouldn't discount the notion of cost/benefit analysis, especially when the individual is concerned. When you are dealing with groups, the herd mentality and peer pressure however, many people are all to willing to throw that consideration to the wind in order to conform however. This of course has its own slew of problems which tend to devolve into "US against THEM" or at worst "US or THEM".

Violent content in music, video games and movies DOES play a role in the society's levels of violence. The influence is not as immediate and straightforward as most people think when they handwave the issue away as implausible, but it is very real because it contributes to social acceptability of violence.

Lets not kid ourselves here, humanity throughout recorded history (and probably before) has been pretty much "ok" with violence. What has really changed is how and to whom that violence is dished out upon. Movies are no more violent than they were 50 years ago, what has changed however is the graphic nature of the violence. As for games, I went through this whole "games are evil" crap with Dungeons and Dragons, and it is crap.

I find the tendency of modern movies and video games to "humanize" the bad guys and to pursue moral ambiguity as a virtue downright creepy. Oh look, we're so sophisticated, we are so convinced that everyone has their own truth that we will let you seek yours through playing slavers, assassins, bank heist crews and carjackers.

Again, none of this is new. All of thise things existed in storytelling long before movies existed.

And on TV, you have Dexter- perhaps the culmination of the tendency to humanize, rationalize and excuse psychopatic violence.

I have never watched Dexter, not my kind of thing. I have never got the impression from people who do watch it that it excuses his behavior. Rationalize, for sure but again, you don't have to go far to see peoples ability to rationalize egregious behavior (which sorta leads back to your very first point in a way)

Engaging with that kind of mass culture lowers the subconscious threshhold of permissible behavior in our minds whether we are aware of it or not.

I feel it tends to emphasize a lack of personal accountability, but you do get to that quite shortly.

Gun ownership is also a different kind of problem than most people think. Availability of guns is not ipso facto a cause of violence, but the attitude to guns and to gun ownership can be. I think the problem in the US is the treatment of guns as an entitlement rather than a responsibility. The right to own guns is not sufficiently linked to the requirements to store, handle and use them responsibly. Were it up to me I would have conditioned gun ownership on mandatory training every 3-4 months, give police the right to conduct random inspections of how the guns are stored in the house and perhaps require gun owners to spend at least one evening a week as assistance to police- the more frequent the reminders of moral and legal responsibility, the less likely people will be to misuse the guns they own.

I can't say I disagree with any of that at all. In fact, many of your points above exist out here right now.

[KEK]

if the religious after-school program though isn't forcing kids to participate and is just an optional after-school program that kids who are attending the school who might be religious might want to take part in and again is not forcing students to take part in the program then I don't see what the problem is

I think it depends who's paying for it. A secular state like the US can't really justify tax payer money being spent on any particular religion.

[lordofseas]

13 people died at Columbine- well comparable to my example.

And 7 injured.

Obviously guns can kill at faster rates, but the type of weapon being used is not the root of the problem, that's my point. Had there been "only" 8 dead children in the Newtown massacre rather than 20, it would still have been a terrible tragedy. But that had they been killed with a butcher's cleaver like in China, no one would obscure the nature of the problem by blaming the knife.

Nor am I suggesting that guns are the root of the problem. They are a symptom. And no one is blaming the gun. Which is why that we are suggesting that people get background checks, people get training. And we don't need to have guns in circulation that don't serve the purpose of self-defence. Otherwise crazy people will get their hands on them. No, we can't stop the sufficiently crazy morons from building weapons, but we can certainly delay and impede their efforts. Or should we just not bother?

[SoulReaver]

while we're at it how about some background checks & psych evals for these guys:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz28ZUwrH4P

(looks like even the most trusted elements of american society have gun control probs. lol)

[Wolf O'Donnell]

So I guess the Westboro Baptist Church just bluffed about coming. I swear, almost every local friend I have on Facebook was ready to march up there and run them out of the state.

[Seastallion]

You know, before those things, there was no violence...And death metal has the word death in it..

*Hits GF* Sorry, i watched Kill Bill last night.

Silly; but if you read the follow up, you understood the point.

Interesting post I found on facebook page...

[Ukko]

Silly; but if you read the follow up, you understood the point.

Err, yeah, silly was kind of my point...

[KEK]

Silly; but if you read the follow up, you understood the point.

Interesting post I found on facebook page...

[IMG]https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/224945_458469237545395_490392065_n.png[IMG]

Do you believe people should be allowed to own anti-tank weaponry? Grenades? Tanks? Presumably you draw a line, no? The only difference is we disagree on where it should be drawn. I don't think restrictions being placed upon the ownership of devices designed to kill other human beings is an unreasonable request for a public to make, nor a naive one.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

those idiots again...

when my mom dies I plan to see to it she gets a military service, as she's a vet, and if those blowhards show up they're gonna see how nasty I can get real damn quick

and yes that's what I meant....if a certain religiously oriented group wanted to hold an optional after school activity/program for like-minded people why shouldn't they be allowed to use school property for that? especially seeing as how they generally aren't likely gonna be trying to outright force people to join in the activity/program

Yeah man, I honestly dont know how they have been able to get away with attacking peoples funeral services without someone breaking some heads. I mean.. they are REALLY REALLY asking for it. Hell, if they do that to you and your family, I think you have every right to chase them away.

[Seastallion]

Do you believe people should be allowed to own anti-tank weaponry? Grenades? Tanks? Presumably you draw a line, no? The only difference is we disagree on where it should be drawn. I don't think restrictions being placed upon the ownership of devices designed to kill other human beings is an unreasonable request for a public to make, nor a naive one.

Obviously, a WMD would certainly be a 'red line'. However, a tech savvy individual could probably build one for themselves, but fortunately most such people aren't inclined to do something like that. The heavier the weaponry, the greater the individual costs, and for most people therefore restrictive on its own without any law being necessary to prohibit it. On the other hand, a very wealthy person might buy things like tanks, etc. Obviously, it is ALREADY a crime for people that have criminal convictions to purchase such weapons. There ARE a few people who own Tanks, but they are mainly used as historical props or toys. The same is true of cannons and grenades. Many of them are veterans. On the other hand, most wealthy people aren't inclined to buy such weaponry.

In any case, there are already laws in the books, so more gun control isn't the answer. This tragedy, as horrible as it was, doesn't change anything. The weapons that guy used, belonged to his mother. Apparently she was using them in part, to try and relate to him, as a single mother who was finding it increasingly difficult to do so. This guy was obviously very disturbed, with severe social problems, and apparently he had taken to burning himself. Supposedly he couldn't feel any pain physically, and combined with his social difficulties somehow ended up translating to an emotional symptom as well.

If anything, we need to certainly review how we deal with the emotionally disturbed, as everyone one of these types of killers has been. As a culture, people tend to not want to get involved with other people's business, and often standby when criminal activity occurs, sometimes not out of fear but rather an indifference. Women have been raped and murdered with witnesses nearby that have done nothing. This happened to a woman in NYC once, with over 30 witnesses, and not one of them did so much as pick up a phone to call 911. The problems are cultural and sociological, rather than more or less weapons. People used to carry their weapons to school all the time, but it never occurred to them to use them on their fellow students. They used them to hunt before and after school. So obviously, things have changed culturally, and not for the better.

Things like Death Metal and Gangster Rap are merely SYMPTOMS of the real problems. The increase in broken families is certainly a factor. Parental irresponsibility occurs far too often, both in the forms of indifferent parents, and absent fathers. The gangs reach out to young people, offering them a 'place to belong', yet ironically these same teens are able to recognize generally, that they don't want their own kids joining them. So if it isn't good enough for their own children, why was it good enough for them? The tenants of family are something people in this country really need to strive to restore. Spiritual communities are often effective in addressing this, so the absence of God or Religion in the public discourse is also part of the problem. Faith used to play a much larger role in society than today, and as a result people are trending into more godless behavior. That isn't to say that bad things didn't happen back when faith was a bigger part of society, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent. Churches often served in the place of psychiatry, and was fairly effective usually. Yes, you have a few church groups that advocate harmful things, but they are the exception, rather than the rule. The community where the shooting happened in CT, has a lot of churches of various types, and I doubt a single one of them would advocate what happened. Who knows, perhaps if the killer had been more exposed to spiritual faith, there might have been a very different outcome.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

People can and do have ethics without a God of any kind. Saying things like this event would not have happened if we had FORCED the kids to pray, as people have said on this very forum is disgusting. If you want your religion to be part of law and government in society then find a nice theocracy and move there. "Faith" also gave us the crusades and countless people blowing themselves and others up for any number of religions.

If actually doing things like enforcing gun control laws, creating new ones that have deeper background checks is not the answer then I dont see how forcing people into your religion is.

[The Flyattractor]

If you want your religion to be part of law and government in society then find a nice theocracy and move there..

People did. It was once called North America. But those days are long long past.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

People did. It was once called North America. But those days are long long past.

I was not aware that North America was ever one nation onto itself. Are you talking about the settlers from England coming over to practice their religion away from the church on England?
Whatever the case is, you are correct. This country is a place where anyone can think what they want and the government does not force you to believe in anything.