Ray Jay wrote:Steve, which comment in particular by Danivon are you reacting to?

The second paragraph I quoted. He's a very clever man. Not particularly fair or honest, but clever.

This may be just about the most heinous mass murder I can recall. To kill that many youth in a personal manner in such a premeditated, callous, and large scale manner is with few equals.

This perp seems to display an almost complete lack of empathy with other human beings. Whatever ideology he was tied up with could likely be replaced with a number of others with a similar result. This appears to be rooted in the psyche of a highly functional highly demented individual.

Steve, I am not equating you with this killer. I am, however, noting that you appear to have been looking askance from the main issue and at peripheral ones, which suggests to me some discomfort. It's natural to be discomfortable about this sort of thing. It's easier if the perpetrator can be clearly shown to be nothing like you, but if you share anything in common, however trivial, that is hard to bear.

I've seen how you react if someone does the same thing when a Muslim commits mass murder. Perhaps now you can understand why others are reluctant to jump to conclusions about why an attack may have occurred.

Neal - you are right, but some ideologies appear to me more prone to this than others. We already know that there are interpretations of Islam that have been used to justify such acts (even by people acting alone). It's unlikely that a hard-line Quaker would end up shooting people. Perhaps it's unlikely that a psychopath would be a Quaker, but the cause and effect is not always simple. It's easy to dismiss someone like this (or Hitler or Stalin) as a monster and then move on. The more worrying and scary thought is that he may not be so different to the rest of us at all.

The ideology that this man espoused was about hatred and fear, and so I expect that it fed his delusions rather than challenged them. When you have a community of people telling each other that the EUSSR is encouraging Islamic immigration into Europe in order to destroy it, that there will be conflict and that the real enemy of the people are the Marxist drones running society, that kind of stuff isn't going to lead to calmness. When you have mainstream commentators saying similar things (leavened a little, perhaps), it creates a culture where extremist views are considered more acceptable.

Isn't that just what extremist Islamists do, and what slightly less extreme Islamists are accused of complicity in? Would we even be saying things like "he would have done it whatever the ideology" had he been a Muslim? Would we suggest that any links he had to other people with similar views was less relevant than the act itself? Would we not want to explore the possibility that others are similarly inspired, or compare to those who actually have been?

I tell you what is very uplifting, and that's the reaction of many Norwegians. They are not calling for vengeance. They are not howling for right wingers to be locked up or their rights curtailed. They are saying things like:

Jens Stoltenberg, PM wrote:I'm proud to live in a country that has managed to stand together in the face of tragedy. I am impressed over how much dignity, care and strength we have. We're a little country but a proud people. We are shaken but we will not give up our values. Our response is more freedom, more democracy but not naivety.

AUF member wrote:If one man can show so much hate, think how much love we could show, standing together.

danivon wrote:Steve, I am not equating you with this killer. I am, however, noting that you appear to have been looking askance from the main issue and at peripheral ones, which suggests to me some discomfort. It's natural to be discomfortable about this sort of thing. It's easier if the perpetrator can be clearly shown to be nothing like you, but if you share anything in common, however trivial, that is hard to bear.

I don't, so no problem for me. Your comments are unwarranted, unreasonable, and, to be charitable, horse excrement.

I do tend to look at crimes--as this was--analytically. I did that for a very long time. It should not have been possible. Period.

When you have mainstream commentators saying similar things (leavened a little, perhaps), it creates a culture where extremist views are considered more acceptable.

You've set a new record for farthest leap of logic. Grats!

This just isn't some otherwise swell guy who was pushed down the path of extreme violence. I put Nadal Hassan into this same kind of category.

I feel bad when I accidentally hit a bird or small animal with my car. This guy isn't feeling ANY empathy. He's wired wrong.

"So put him down, harvest his organs, and be done with it." Bbauska

Neal Anderth wrote:This just isn't some otherwise swell guy who was pushed down the path of extreme violence. I put Nadal Hassan into this same kind of category.

I can't. Hasan was a US Army officer who took an oath to defend this country, conversed with our enemies, and acted on their behalf. His thinking was twisted, but I don't think he was any more out of his mind than OBL--in other words, he's morally culpable.

I feel bad when I accidentally hit a bird or small animal with my car. This guy isn't feeling ANY empathy. He's wired wrong.

This part is 100% right. I hit a chipmunk 2 weeks ago and felt terrible--even though I had no chance of avoiding him (from 15 ft away he ran right in front of my car at 35 mph). I was nearly breathless a few nights ago when a neighbor's dog came close to doing the same thing. I could hear my heartbeat when I figured out that he and I had both stopped in time.

It takes years of "training" one's conscience to be that cold-blooded, to hear the sounds he heard and just continue on? It's not human.

However, I'm not convinced yet he's "insane" any more than Hitler or Stalin. Some people enjoy watching others suffer--that is not "fixable." If he is indeed like that, he will be the same when/if the Norwegians release him.

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't, so no problem for me. Your comments are unwarranted, unreasonable, and, to be charitable, horse excrement.

You don't what?

I do tend to look at crimes--as this was--analytically. I did that for a very long time. It should not have been possible. Period.

But total security is impossible, so I don't get your point. Norway is not the USA and they never had to worry about this before. Frankly putting this 'analysis' in such definite terms while imploring not to accept the guy's religion at face value seems odd. The prime reason for this tragedy is that the guy did it. Why he did it comes down to more than opportunity. Why are you not looking at motive, Sherlock?

When you have mainstream commentators saying similar things (leavened a little, perhaps), it creates a culture where extremist views are considered more acceptable.

You've set a new record for farthest leap of logic. Grats!

Not heard of reinforcement, then? You don't think anti-immigrant sentiments with racist overtones from prominent media sources could in any way serve to normalise hard line racist attitudes?

How different is that from preaching hate?

Neal Anderth wrote:I feel bad when I accidentally hit a bird or small animal with my car. This guy isn't feeling ANY empathy. He's wired wrong.

"So put him down, harvest his organs, and be done with it." Bbauska

A cop out. He's human, and to treat him as a monster is to ignore that uncomfortable fact. If he is sane, then it's not just 'wiring' it is a conscious decision that has been made at each point.

If he's not sane, is he even responsible?

By the way, lack of empathy is not reason to put a man down. Autists are people too.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I don't, so no problem for me. Your comments are unwarranted, unreasonable, and, to be charitable, horse excrement.

You don't what?

Intentional ignorance is a real strength of yours. I was responding to your intended slight:

. . . .if you share anything in common, however trivial, that is hard to bear.

And, I'm quite certain you are not so dull as to fail to apprehend that.

But total security is impossible, so I don't get your point.

That's because you're not thinking.

One man killed all those kids one at a time and you don't think security might have been a problem? If that's your position, you're not as bright as I'd presumed. I apologize for overestimating you.

Why are you not looking at motive, Sherlock?

Elementary, my not so dear or clever Watson: motive is irrelevant when you know who the suspect is and he's given you a 1500 page motive.

Not heard of reinforcement, then? You don't think anti-immigrant sentiments with racist overtones from prominent media sources could in any way serve to normalise hard line racist attitudes?

No, I don't.

Could they fuel a nutcase? Sure. So did "Helter Skelter."

danivon wrote:When you have mainstream commentators saying similar things (leavened a little, perhaps), it creates a culture where extremist views are considered more acceptable.

I think you've got it wrong. When you don't debate issues that are on the minds of the people like immigration, perceived or real lack of integration, problems with some of the cultural values of the newcomers, or the rescue package for Greece or the process of integration into the EU then extremist views increase. The problem is that in many parts of Europe the ruling parties ignored those problems until extreme right wing parties already gained relevant support in the electorate.
Now that they are here and organised it makes rational debates that much harder, because you can bet that they'll scream their heads off the second measures are discussed that lay some of the onus of integration on the natives or cost money. But the problem isn't that mainstream political parties now face these issues, but rather that they didn't the past 30 years.
Same applies to the TP. Those are people who have been ignored by the established politicans for a few decades and now they've had enough and are probably here to stay.

danivon wrote:Isn't that just what extremist Islamists do, and what slightly less extreme Islamists are accused of complicity in? Would we even be saying things like "he would have done it whatever the ideology" had he been a Muslim? Would we suggest that any links he had to other people with similar views was less relevant than the act itself? Would we not want to explore the possibility that others are similarly inspired, or compare to those who actually have been?

The thing i can't help but notice is how inconsequent and illogical the worldview of a great many people including journalists seems to be.
The same people who usually write "you can't paint all Muslims with the same brush", or "these Terrorists are no true Muslims", or "we must not discriminate Muslims now", or even better "some of the fault lies with us" are the very same people who now try to establis that everyone on the right is to blame for this because it's an ideology of hate to point out some things in reality.
At the same time everyone who usually says "well Islam sucks, violent bastards" is clamoring for a fairer approach and distances himself from the mad person.

In general i think - and i said that in the Gillford thread - it would be a huge boon to our democratic debate culture if we wouldn't refer to political or ideological opponents in terms usually reserved for war ( i know that's hard sometime) but at the same time we can hardly make the reaction of a few probably somewhat deranged people into a litmus test for political and free speech.
We can't chill political debate or free speech, because some people will feel hurt and blow something up or feel threatened and blow something up.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:You don't what?

Intentional ignorance is a real strength of yours. I was responding to your intended slight:

. . . .if you share anything in common, however trivial, that is hard to bear.

And, I'm quite certain you are not so dull as to fail to apprehend that.

Actually, I was checking to see whether you meant that you don't share anything in common or that you don't feel discomfort. It was ambiguous.

But you do share things in common with the guy. So do I. I did say 'however trivial'. He's a white male who is at least culturally Christian, and who is strongly conservative in his attitudes. He hates the left and thinks his government contains traitors.

These traits don't make him a killer, or you. But you cannot deny that you share them. It is uncomfortable to realise that you may have something in common with a very nasty person, and it's human nature to try and avoid the comparison.

But total security is impossible, so I don't get your point.

That's because you're not thinking.

No, there's a point here - there's no way to totally remove the chances for some one to commit some kind of attack. As much as we can try to prevent an attack through security measures, it will never be 100% successful. So there still remains the issue of why the attack is launched.

One man killed all those kids one at a time and you don't think security might have been a problem? If that's your position, you're not as bright as I'd presumed. I apologize for overestimating you.

I never said it wasn't a problem. I'm saying of the issues that arise, it's not the most important.

Why are you not looking at motive, Sherlock?

Elementary, my not so dear or clever Watson: motive is irrelevant when you know who the suspect is and he's given you a 1500 page motive.

Large chunks of which he didn't write. Most of it appears to have been cribbed from a variety of sources. But it is not irrelevant. If he'd pointed to a 1400 year old book written in Arabia as a motive, would you be so sanguine about the relevance of the motive?

Not heard of reinforcement, then? You don't think anti-immigrant sentiments with racist overtones from prominent media sources could in any way serve to normalise hard line racist attitudes?

No, I don't.

Could they fuel a nutcase? Sure. So did "Helter Skelter."

Oh boy. If "Helter Skelter" was called "That Sharon Tate's a bit of a cow, what a waste of oxygen", then it may possibly be comparable.

The point is not that a nutcase liked it, it's that a nutcase (and many others who are thankfully less nutty) see it as validation for their world view, in the terms that both the nutcase and the authors understand. One article by one wingnut may not make a difference. Many coming out week after week for years, confirming prejudices and directing opprobrium at the 'other'...

Similarly, one sermon by a radical imam may not make a difference. Many being made week after week for years by many imams...

Faxmonkey wrote:I think you've got it wrong. When you don't debate issues that are on the minds of the people like immigration, perceived or real lack of integration, problems with some of the cultural values of the newcomers, or the rescue package for Greece or the process of integration into the EU then extremist views increase. The problem is that in many parts of Europe the ruling parties ignored those problems until extreme right wing parties already gained relevant support in the electorate.

I don't know about Austria, but in the UK, the debate has been going on for a long time. We've had government ministers from 30 years ago taking about it. We've had increasing immigration laws stepped up over the past few decades. Yet we still have a vocal and nasty far right. I personally think that the last UK government went too far to pander to the whining of the anti-immigration factions, but you will still hear people talking as if the policy was to have no border controls at all and invite everyone in.

Why do you thing such an attitude exists? Could it be because people are being constantly told that this is the case?

The thing i can't help but notice is how inconsequent and illogical the worldview of a great many people including journalists seems to be.

Illogical, yes. Inconsequential? Not so much. People believe stuff they see written in the papers. People seek validation for their own views from 'authority'.

The same people who usually write "you can't paint all Muslims with the same brush", or "these Terrorists are no true Muslims", or "we must not discriminate Muslims now", or even better "some of the fault lies with us" are the very same people who now try to establis that everyone on the right is to blame for this because it's an ideology of hate to point out some things in reality.

Anyone who blames the attack on all of the 'right' is just as wrong as anyone who blames Al Qaeda attacks on all of Islam.

But these are not a measure of influence, only of what writers are saying. Perhaps you don't spend much time with people who read the tabloid press, perhaps you do. I've noticed in recent years that there is a general change in tone, that racist attitudes are becoming more 'acceptable' in various public forums, and that the very same newspapers which are feeding the anti-immigrant feeling just so happen to be the ones that are popular and that are being believed by the same people.

In general i think - and i said that in the Gillford thread - it would be a huge boon to our democratic debate culture if we wouldn't refer to political or ideological opponents in terms usually reserved for war ( i know that's hard sometime) but at the same time we can hardly make the reaction of a few probably somewhat deranged people into a litmus test for political and free speech.
We can't chill political debate or free speech, because some people will feel hurt and blow something up or feel threatened and blow something up.

I'm not saying that we should restrict free speech. I am, however, saying that exercising your rights does not come without responsibility. Say what you like, sure. But accept that lying and hate-mongering are not beyond criticism, and that the things you say can have an effect on others.

danivon wrote:
Why do you thing such an attitude exists? Could it be because people are being constantly told that this is the case?

Well sometimes there's a cernel of truth in it too, no ? It's not all fantasy and paranoia. Over here for example alot has to do with the fact that they like to talk law and order, but when it comes to financing the judicary and police and immigration bureaucracy they are pretty miserly. So there's a huge gap between political rhethoric and the reality of public policy.

danivon wrote:
But these are not a measure of influence, only of what writers are saying. Perhaps you don't spend much time with people who read the tabloid press, perhaps you do. I've noticed in recent years that there is a general change in tone, that racist attitudes are becoming more 'acceptable' in various public forums, and that the very same newspapers which are feeding the anti-immigrant feeling just so happen to be the ones that are popular and that are being believed by the same people.

I honestly believe that the tabloid press wouldn't have such an influence on people if their expierences in life would contradict what's written there. If you have mostly positive interactions with immigrants then i really doubt the tabloid campaign will get to you. However if you already are unhappy with your experiences with immigrants then it will most certainly fall on fertile ground.

danivon wrote: I'm not saying that we should restrict free speech. I am, however, saying that exercising your rights does not come without responsibility. Say what you like, sure. But accept that lying and hate-mongering are not beyond criticism, and that the things you say can have an effect on others.

No opinion especially extreme political or religious positions should be beyond critsism and of course it's only appropriate to ask of muslim communities or in this case right wingers to face the fact that someone who selfidentifies as one of theirs carried out such an atrocious act. I'm not a fan of cheap excuses.
Though i think that allegations of racisim, discriminatory policies, facism and other -isms have been lightly and inflationary leveled against conservatives as part of a political strategy to delegitimize them too and i do feel that some of that is again going on in the aftermath of the latest terror attack. That desensiblized the public to such claims. Same with the muslim communities, if you permanently claim something is radical or evil then at some point they'll just ignore you.
That community center in NY comes to mind. If that guy is a super radical to the same people who listen to Rush or Hannity i'd not take them seriously anymore either.

danivon wrote:These traits don't make him a killer, or you. But you cannot deny that you share them. It is uncomfortable to realise that you may have something in common with a very nasty person, and it's human nature to try and avoid the comparison.

Wow. So profound.

So, if he fancies football, tea, and British comedy, then he has some things in common with you. Is it uncomfortable to realize how closely tied you are to a killer?

Your comparison is, well, rickyesque.

No, there's a point here - there's no way to totally remove the chances for some one to commit some kind of attack. As much as we can try to prevent an attack through security measures, it will never be 100% successful.

There's no way to prevent robbery either, so don't use alarms or armed guards. You can't be 100% successful anyway.

Again, you have no coherence.

So there still remains the issue of why the attack is launched.

Because he's a homicidal maniac. Not so difficult, is it?

One man killed all those kids one at a time and you don't think security might have been a problem? If that's your position, you're not as bright as I'd presumed. I apologize for overestimating you.

I never said it wasn't a problem. I'm saying of the issues that arise, it's not the most important.

Unless, per chance, one is interested in reducing the risk of a future occurrence.

Large chunks of which he didn't write. Most of it appears to have been cribbed from a variety of sources. But it is not irrelevant.

Ah, I see . . . you want him prosecuted for plagiarism. Does that carry a stiffer penalty in Norway than murder?

Look, when someone cites the Unabomber, he's a few cards short of a deck.

If he'd pointed to a 1400 year old book written in Arabia as a motive, would you be so sanguine about the relevance of the motive?

His motive would be obvious. In this case, his motive is also obvious: extreme xenophobia combined with sociopathy and a violent psychopathic streak one suspects he's been cultivating for a very long time.

Oh boy. If "Helter Skelter" was called "That Sharon Tate's a bit of a cow, what a waste of oxygen", then it may possibly be comparable.

The point is not that a nutcase liked it, it's that a nutcase (and many others who are thankfully less nutty) see it as validation for their world view, in the terms that both the nutcase and the authors understand.

Do you know why the Manson crew did what they did? Manson thought . . . it would trigger a race war. There are more similarities than you'd care to admit.

One article by one wingnut may not make a difference. Many coming out week after week for years, confirming prejudices and directing opprobrium at the 'other'...

This is absolute garbage.

Why is it that anyone cares about Islam? It's not because it is "other." It is because massive violence is carried out on a regular basis under the banner of Islam--no matter how "most" Muslims may feel. Additionally, many Muslims not given to participate in violence themselves do not feel compelled to turn in those who are involved in it.

In any event, someone like Breivik is going to commit violent acts. That's just reality. If he weren't steeped in anti-Muslim bigotry, he would hate Jews or gypsies or homosexuals or prostitutes. He would find someone to act out his violent urges upon because that's what psychopaths do.

As for Mr. Breivik being a Christian, let's look at his own words (I know, I know, it's a wild idea). From his manifesto:

A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?

If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian (p. 1307).

That's a rather unusual definition of Christianity. He fairly clearly rejects the religion, but endorses the perception of its cultural, social, and moral influence.

What he wrote could have been written by Hitler. It would not have been written by anyone actually of the Christian faith.