Any article with that title is onto something good.
Well, this latest guy apparently served in Psych for the latter part of his military service (he ultimately washed out). Totally non-relevant, but it caught my attention.
1: I erased a whole paragraph in the first draft celebrating the title of the linked post.
Is it OK if I think that both David Brooks and the author of the linked post are idiots?
Me. And the answer is no, sorry.
Excellent post, excellent article...but:
In all cases, the essential background is patriarchy.
Nope. Also Capitalist, racist, and colonialist etc, which play out in varied ways that overlap and coincide with patriarchy.
Anytime someone gets reductionist, be it Brooks (insanity) or "socprof," they are exercising or seeking discourse hegemony.
It's possible David Brooks has reasonable opinions about all manner of topics. That would be an interesting book project: Topics on Which David Brooks is Entirely Sensible: From Socks (pro-argyle) to Rocks (thinks they're very hard).
The way 8 works of course:
Let's get rid of the patriarchy, so we can have lots of billionaire white elite hedge-trading women controlling the periphery from the core.
10: Holy shit! I never knew that; I am enlightened!
8: Well, I for one would have welcomed more economic discussion in the link, but it is just a blog post, after all. Certainly, the writer makes a pretty strong case for a racial analysis of this kind of crime -- in some ways, a stronger one than the patriarchy business. Once you've got patriarchy, capitalism and white supremacy on the table, isn't the colonialism sort of implied? I mean, yes, we can think of counter-examples where there is no strong link to colonialist crimes/legacies, but this piece is hardly arguing for that.
At any rate, I'm pretty much in agreement.
As an aside, does the whole "Sikhs are peaceful people" meme ring false for anyone else? First off, why essentialize Sikhs? Second, there's plenty of rough stuff in Sikh history, such as, you know, assassinating Indira Gandhi and all that. Third, is the implication then that if these had been Shi'a worshipers at a very conservative mosque, that would have been somehow more justified or easier to bear? Sigh.
5: Wait, why is the author of the linked article an idiot? I thought what he was saying was almost commonsensically true.
11:I doubt it.
Exactly what brave new world did we get with a Afro-American President and a woman Secretary of State? I haven't noticed, but I haven't been paying attention lately.
Because serial killers, who are definitionally extreme outliers, are not useful starting places for any reasonable sociological conclusions. If what you take him to be saying is "social context has some influence on behavior" what he is saying is idiotically banal. If what he is saying is "let me use obviously mentally ill serial killers to prove my various pet sociological theories" he is, like everyone attempting to do this, an idiot.
15: Okay, I'm starting to be persuaded, but what if the extreme outliers take different forms in different cultures? That would say something about the culture, no?
14.2: But he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!
16 -- it's theoretically possible, but almost certainly not in a way that can be very usefully teased out. "How James Holmes explains our culture" is almost certainly just an exercise in finding a hook for reiterating the pre-existing beliefs of the author.
Once you've got patriarchy, capitalism and white supremacy on the table, isn't the colonialism sort of implied?
Maybe, sometimes. "Colonialism" has been extended by Harvey (maybe;et al) to urban-rural, economic and racial segregation within cities, and other geographical and social distinctions. Subject defined by what/who is abject. All categories overlap, and overdetermination is necessary. Perspectivism.
And racism is not only "white supremacy." Japanophile (sort of) here, and although "whiteness" shows up as a category there too (skin lighteners) the Ainu are not all that swarthy.
Technically, we're more talking about spree killers/mass murderers here. Of course, as individuals, they're outliers, but aren't they also indicators for larger trends? There's plenty of neo-Nazis around who are always talking about doing things like these shootings. Every so often, one of them gets up the gumption to do it, and is often praised and glorified for a long time afterwards by many, many people. How is that not significant? Especially in the cases of McVeigh and Rudolph, there is every reason to believe that a significant number of people assisted them prior to and subsequent to their crimes.
David Brooks first points out that spree killings have occured in the past. He also notes that spree killings have occured in Europe and other places. Therefore, Brooks concludes that people that attempt to criticize contemporary American society because there are spree killings are wrong.
Oddly, Brooks also notes that there have been many more spree killings in the last 20 years in the United States than in the past or in other places. He somehow manages not to realize that may cause a problem for his previous argument.
19: And racism is not only "white supremacy."
Ah, yeah, but we're not talking about guys dressing up like Toshiro Mifune and waving copies of Mishima novels around, are we?
20: Well, I think what Halford is saying (or, at least, what he's made me think) is that these killings aren't really evidence for patriarchy because even if they hadn't happened, we'd still believe that patriarchy existed. Same with neo-Nazi crimes and racism.
But I'm still wondering whether they tell us something: comparing the events that make men snap and shoot up a movie theater and those that make women snap and kill their children (or even thinking about the difference between those two kinds of acts) might reveal something unexpected.
Ah, yeah, but we're not talking about guys dressing up like Toshiro Mifune and waving copies of Mishima novels around, are we?
Didn't Mishima rather cover that particular waterfront himself?
If what he is saying is "let me use obviously mentally ill serial killers to prove my various pet sociological theories" he is, like everyone attempting to do this, an idiot.
The day after the shooting I recall someone noting that "the only thing we know for sure at this point is that this shooting spree proves that everyone's pet theory is correct."
these killings aren't really evidence for patriarchy because even if they hadn't happened, we'd still believe that patriarchy existed
Right.
Therefore, Brooks concludes that people that attempt to criticize contemporary American society because there are spree killings are wrong.
A "culture" (nation? polity? state? civilization?) is not at fault for suffering spree killings/mass murders, but for failing to respond to same, as our culture (etc.) has manifestly failed to do since, I guess, Charles Whitman.
17: So as far as global climate change is concerned, we ain't seen nothin' yet?
15: If what you take him to be saying is "social context has some influence on behavior" what he is saying is idiotically banal.
I'm going with this. Frankly, it always looks banal, perhaps idiotically so, when people spell out the obvious. Yet given the David Brooks's of the world, someone has to do it from time to time.
23: these killings aren't really evidence for patriarchy because even if they hadn't happened, we'd still believe that patriarchy existed.
I don't follow. It doesn't seem to me that the blogger is arguing that spree killings are evidence for patriarchy; just reflections of it.
Regarding the shooting in Wisconsin, I notice that officials and the press have not shied away from the term "domestic terrorism"* despite the fact that the alleged shooter is a white guy. That seems like a change.
*They didn't pronounce it domestic terrorism but they did speculate that it might be.
As an aside, does the whole "Sikhs are peaceful people" meme ring false for anyone else?
Yeah, the whole "carrying a dagger" thing makes me a bit skeptical of this claim. Then again, I've never known a Sikh to actually stab a dude.
If memory serves, the subcontinent-colonizing Brits classified Sikhs as a "warrior race."
You know, Christians hang little instruments of execution by torture around their necks. I don't think a religious requirement to carry a knife means anything much about a predisposition to violence among Sikhs.
31: Jesus is often said to be peaceful, but he brought a sword.
25: I think referring to well-developed ideological positions as "pet theories" is part of the problem here. Because once you can do that, you're back in Brooksville, throwing up your hands and saying no one can make any sense of this sort of thing. Which is absurd. Fascism is something that people contend with on a daily basis, here and around the world. It is wrong, and stupid, and despicable, but it is an ideology. To this fellow's way of thinking, which is shared by many, many people alive today, it's totally a rational act to go and murder immigrants. If we're going to encounter this kind of thing, and abrogate our responsibility to analyze and combat it, then it is we who are the nutters.
Or, what Nat said about essentializing. Yes, "Sikhs are peaceful people" is a stupid thing to say, but not so much because it would be more or less stupid about any other 'people'.
Christians hang little instruments of execution by torture around their necks.
"DAD, get off my case, these George Michael earrings are cool. Jeez. Crosses don't have to be Christian."
- 11 year old Heebie
33: I specifically did not mention the Kirpan requirement, because I don't think it's very relevant. It's absurd to talk about Sikhs as though they're all united in their commitment to never raise a hand in anger against anyone, and the very thought of a Sikh committing an act of violence is anathema. What other group of similar size could you even begin to make a statement like that about and not be laughed out of the room? Nixon was a Quaker, after all.
What other group of similar size could you even begin to make a statement like that about and not be laughed out of the room?
Soccer moms.
@35
In 25 I was referring to the Aurora shooting. This latest one is a bit different re: the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn. The guy was involved enough in white supremacist circles to be on the radar of the Southern Poverty Law Center and he targeted non-European immigrants.
This is really the treat now for homosexuals!
Then again, I've never known a Sikh to actually stab a dude.
They never listen to me.
I don't think a religious requirement to carry a knife means anything much about a predisposition to violence among Sikhs.
Perhaps not, but a knife is a symbol of violence in a way that a cross is not. Or rather, both are symbols of violence, but you can't actually stab someone with a cross.
That is to say, a cross is as much a symbol of violence as a gas chamber, an electric chair, or a firing squad.
43: I may be overgeneralizing from the Sikh kid I hung out with in high school, but the knife doesn't have to be much of a knife -- IIRC, the one he carried was literally an inch long. I mean, it was a 'real knife' in that it had an edge, but clearly a symbolic rather than a useful weapon.
Maybe, but when it comes in the form of a little thing you hang on a chain around your neck, there isn't much you can do with it besides perhaps poke someone in the eye.
It's been a very long time since there was much crucifixion. Knifing is still current.
A little gold firing squad necklace would be cute -- very intricate, maybe with a tiny ruby indicating the coal on the end of the last cigarette.
They say the truth will set you free, but I see signs of treachery
Go on perpetually, here's how they get you g
They use the tricks, just to juice your mix
But cross be in their heart like a vampire stabbed with a crucifix
Here's a CIF piece from the Guardian, talking among other things about how small and symbolic a kirpan may be.
Are we going to rank world religions based on the badassness of their symbols? Sikhism would be up there.
As originally instituted, the kirpan is supposed to be used only in defence when attacked; it signifies that Sikhs aren't going to roll over in the face of provocation, but it's not supposed to be used aggressively.
You still wouldn't have wanted to tangle with Ranjit Singh, but.
Changing everyone's name to "Lion"? Also badass.
This is a stupid subthread. Sorry, but the otherizing is completely obnoxious.
Can I otherize people without two monitors or do I need to wait until I figure out how to get two different images to display on them?
Apparently, you can just the program over. I fail to see why the early retiree should be the only person to benifit from their retirement.
The really bizarre thing about Brooks' article is that he concludes that spree killings are 'psychological not sociological' because (his words):
Many of the killers had an exaggerated sense of their own significance, which, they felt, was not properly recognized by the rest of the world. Many suffered a grievous blow to their self-esteem -- a lost job, a divorce or a school failure -- and decided to strike back in some showy way.
But the frequency of family breakdown (divorce), unemployment (lost job), and school failure are sociological questions! How we react to them is more psychological, but the amount of psychological pressue that a society puts on its members through stressful external events is an issue of social organization that can't be reduced to individual psychology. To some degree even our sense of our own significance is culturally/sociologically determined as well (although there is a strong psychological component there obviously).
I guess he's implicitly arguing that the pressure of external events is a constant in all societies, that social organization doesn't matter, and some people are just crazy and crack under the standard pressures of life. But it's a weird thing to just throw all social causation out the window right after he's said it's critical.
Comparisons of badassness is also completely stupid.
{deep breath} So I think maybe Halford was annoyed by the blog post linked in the OP because it was problematizing what he (Halford) sort of celebrates in the form of the paleo/cross-fit thing. The he-man thing. I don't know.
As originally instituted, the kirpan is supposed to be used only in defence when attacked; it signifies that Sikhs aren't going to roll over in the face of provocation, but it's not supposed to be used aggressively.
That's pretty much what the NRA says about concealed handguns, and what the MAD doctrine says about nuclear weapons. Its also what Mr. Miyagi said about karate, and I take it all with a grain of salt.
Jesus is often said to be peaceful, but he brought a sword.
1. The interpretation of the passage is not undisputed.
2. But He (ahem) also made a scourge of cords, etc., etc.
That's pretty much what the NRA says about concealed handguns, and what the MAD doctrine says about nuclear weapons.
Okay, but those are all actually dangerous weapons. A kirpan may be a literally usable knife, but it doesn't have to be -- the religious requirement is that a symbolic knife be carried to symbolize capacity for self-defense. Given that it neither symbolically refers to aggressive violence, nor actually enables aggressive violence, thinking of it as saying anything about the peaceful/non-peaceful nature of Sikhs generally is really very silly.
I'm not going to wrestle you, Halford, no matter what.
Don't try to otherize the Sach Khand.
Perhaps idiot is too strong. You are profoundly stupid and humorless.
62, 64: Keep it clean, you two , and at least give me time to set odds.
Don't try to otherize the Sach Khand.
Something pimp hand something otherize something patriarchy better have my money something.
Crucifixes don't kill Christs, Jews kill Christs.
You're a belligerent ass. People just got killed, again. By a fucking white supremacist. I'm humorless about it. I'm also outta here.
People just got killed, again. By a fucking white supremacist.
Glad you're on top of handling that one, then. Of course, none of the rest of us care. Go fuck yourself.
Third, is the implication then that if these had been Shi'a worshipers at a very conservative mosque, that would have been somehow more justified or easier to bear?
Obviously it wouldn't have been, but there is an extra bit of infuriating stupidity about someone murdering Sikhs because they're racist against Muslims.
72: Is that established, that this was anti-Muslim and the killer was a moron as well as a terrorist? Or is it possible that the white-supremacist ideology encompassed directly hating Sikhs as well?
74: Not that I'm aware. I was just assuming.
74: I don't think it's established here, but it certainly has happened often enough.
It's hard to imagine a white supremacist who bothers to distinguish Muslims, Sikhs and other non-whites.
Except Internet-pedantically on 4/c/ha/n or St/orm/fr/on/t or somewhere like that. Some of those guys can get a little "Um, actually" with one another.
I was figuring that it was likelier for your moron-thug-on-the-street seeing a brown-skinned guy in a turban to not know what the turban signified when being spontaneously aggressive. Shooting up a Sikh temple seems to involve less impulsivity and more deliberately looking up the address. It could still be stupidly mistargeted terrorism, but it seems likelier to me that the killer was ecumenical in his hatred.
[I]t seems likelier to me that the killer was ecumenical in his hatred.
They all are. The manifestos are just excuses.
Given that it neither symbolically refers to aggressive violence, nor actually enables aggressive violence, thinking of it as saying anything about the peaceful/non-peaceful nature of Sikhs generally is really very silly.
What it says to me is that Sikhs have a tradition that glamorizes knives. I don't think that gets you points in the "peaceful people" rankings, even if it does pale in comparison to the Anglo-American secular tradition of glamorizing guns.
Eh, I'm not going to convince you on this one.
Probably not, which is OK, because it's kind of a stupid argument. I don't know what a "peaceful people" is anyway.
Well, right. Nat's initial point that 'peaceful people' is just a stupid thing to say about any large group of people is really sufficient.
Has anybody said yet, "If only the Sikhs had a religious custom of carrying handguns instead of knives...."?
85 is disappointing. I was hoping you'd settle it in a pit with broadswords.
Or possibly a rap reggae battle.
Unfortunately the first cop in had to learn the lesson that you ignore the wounded and go give the shooter the Old Yeller treatment. At least it sounds like he's going to live.
give the shooter the Old Yeller treatment
Take him in and let the rascal become a beloved member of the family? Seems risky and unorthodox, but it might work.
Did Snoopp Lion's new last name ever get discussed here?
Sounds like this fellow was significantly more active in neo-Nazi circles than the corporate media reports have given him credit for:
@92
In one of the news reports I read, a representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center said that the had been "tracking him for years."
I assume you have to do more than hang out on neo-Nazi websites or buy skinhead metal music to merit that kind of attention.
90: That's actually the plot of HOTB's "Befriended by the Enemy", about the Jewish family who takes in the old fascist in Lincoln, Nebr. and gets him to change his ways. Probably not something you want to try at home though.
I was hoping you'd settle it in a pit with broadswords.
Tiny little ceremonial broadswords?
96: Exactly. I mean you're both peaceful people, right?
Those red plastic saber-toothpicks they use to hold together the really classy club sandwiches.
I don't know what a "peaceful people" is anyway.
Bonobos.
Better loving through evolution.
Are bonobos really a separate species or just a group of chimpanzees who got kicked out of the troop by uptight alpha males?
Are you asking if bonobos are a chimpanzee hippy commune?
Chimpippimune, Chimpippimune, chimp chimp hippy. I'll eat your face off you peacenik so flee.
David Brooks increasingly reminds me of Mr. Brooke of Middlemarch. All rambly and shambly, like everybody's favourite embarrassing uncle: impervious to the rules of logic, unencumbered by the responsibility to adhere to basic standards of evidence, almost innocent of the knowledge of complex counter-arguments; but he read a few verses of Virgil as a youth "and that sort of thing--up to a certain point, you know. I have always said that, up to a certain point," and this, he feels certain, more than qualifies him to speak at length on any topic whatsoever, "and that sort of thing." An engaging dinner companion, no doubt, if you're in the mood to be entertained by the incoherent, half-baked hypotheses of Uncle Babbles. But as an NYC columnist, Brooks' role seems to be to put a cheerfully avuncular face on a great deal of ugly prejudice and neo-con think tank nastiness.
Brooks' role seems to be to put a cheerfully avuncular face on a great deal of ugly prejudice and neo-con think tank nastiness.
Well put.
102. In the wildly unlikely event that this was a serious question, they're a separate species, Pan paniscus, as opposed to the common Chimpanzee which is Pan troglodytes.
I'm pretty sure that Andrea Yates was pretty ill. I took a class with a lecture from one of the people who worked on her defense. At first they thought, from some aspect of the fact pattern, that it was too much for her to well and truly be not guilty by reason of insanity, but then they decided that she was.
She'd been treated for psychotic depression, and her husband left her alone with the kids when she was really quite unwell.
The religious problem was that her husband thought she was supposed to have more kids to fulfill God's will even when it was bound to harm his wife.
On his end, they wanted him to stay with her all the time, but they had let her out of a hospital when Blue Cross/ Magellan wouldn't pay anymore after 10 days.
108: They didn't used to be separate when I was younger IIRC.
I'm more of a lumper than a splitter, claddastically speaking.
"Since the establishment of the mosque, we've been constantly under attack," said former mosque board member Navid Zaidi, 47. "Our sign has been burnt ... Our mailbox was smashed multiple times. We had bullets shot at our sign."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9457333/US-mosque-burned-to-ground.html
112: My phone adds an extra 'd' when it thinks I'm typing a big word for a stupid reason.
115: And "i"s become "a"s because Apple. Also decrements numbers by 1 because zero-based numbering.
110. You may be confused because they used to be called Pigmy Chimps until somebody noticed that they weren't actually much smaller.
118: That and the fact that people used to say there were three types of great apes (leaving aside humans) and bonobos as a separate species doesn't seem to fit with that. Unless orangutans really are fictional. I suppose there are still three types at the level of the genus regardless of how you split the chimps.
119. Three genera, five species (exc. humans).
Three genera, five species (exc. humans).
We've evolved, and let the chimps fall where they may.
I'm out of date anyway apparently. They've split orangutans into two species...
They've split orangutans into two species (exc. apostropher).
119: What you call "orangutans" are merely Natural Man, obvs.